Gay Marriage? in THE UK? WHAT IS THIS

Guild
Forum Addict
Posts: 4826
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 11:18 am
Alliance: Retiring
Race: Draeden
ID: 1916018
Location: writing a booklet so people understand my humour :D

Re: Gay Marriage? in THE UK? WHAT IS THIS

Psyko wrote: If Civil Partnerships/Unions were the same thing as marriage, those opposed to same-sex marriage would be just as upset with them being in place as they are with legal marriage. Again with the second-class treatment of same-sex couples.

They can't even adopt in most states. Because of sexual orientation. More discrimination against them for who they decide to have sex with on a regular basis. **Filtered** ridiculous.


gay couples can adopt as far as I am aware in the UK..

also you're assuming that people would be upset if they have the same rights, maybe in the US, I believe that its a case of religious people believeing that gay couples shouldnt be married in their institution. nothign to do with legal rights.

and if this upsets gay couples then maybe this religion isnt for them ..

(btw im not particularly religious)
Retired but still on a rampage
Spoiler
Rudy Peña wrote:Yea, OE is the the next FS in terms of snipers. We proud ourselves on it to the point we give out awards and see who can mass the most with a 0 def.
Drahazar wrote:Im happy to snipe anyone i want, why should i build any defences for you people
George Hazard wrote:FM is like a rite of passage for alliances.
You haven't truly made it to manhood until you've slept with the town prostitute.
Image
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Image
Image
Image
Image
Psyko
The Irresistible
Posts: 5636
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:09 pm
ID: 0
Location: USA

Re: Gay Marriage? in THE UK? WHAT IS THIS

Legendary Apophis wrote:I am strongly opposed to the denaturation of marriage whether it is civil or religious (even more I'd be obviously in this case).
Of course you are.
Legendary Apophis wrote:Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.
Only if you are speaking purely from a fundamental religious belief system.
Legendary Apophis wrote:With marriage comes the case of children, and we are all children of a mother and a father, so is Nature.
People get married all the time and choose not to have children. People also have children without being married. Not the best argument, Pops.
Legendary Apophis wrote:Not to mention all the troubles coming within countries who already accepted the "scientifically-made" children, where now they have to consider "parent 3 and parent 4" just due to the divorce/remarriage, the "assisted medical procreation" (for lesbians)
Pretty sure it's been used for straight couples experiencing fertility problems for about 2 decades before these lesbians the process was supposedly created for, according to you.
and the "for others gestation" (for gays)[/quote]For men who want to make money by jerking off (it's been a joke in the US for all of my life), or for those same straight couples who have fertility problems due to the man's sperm count.
Legendary Apophis wrote:with givers of sperm or incubator females (remember the quote I posted few weeks ago about renting female belly by a LGBT socialist lobbyist millionaire, it's a LGBT demand).
Straight women who can't carry a child to term have been using surrogate mothers for decades.
Legendary Apophis wrote:With marriage comes adoption, and Russia (I am glad they took a clear stance) declared that french gay couples won't be able to adopt children from Russia.
Another definitive statement which is completely baseless. Marriage != adoption. Marriage in general != children. Russia can put whatever restrictions they like on out-of-country adoptions, as is their right.
Legendary Apophis wrote:Same goes for many Eastern Europe countries, for most African countries, as well as many Asian countries who will probably declare that later.
Many Asian countries have strict laws about adoption these days because US celebrities have made adopted Asian babies a fad, and they are having issues with population control because many Asian cultures devalue daughters and they are starting to run out of women to help repopulate the next generation. I'm sure they have plenty of restrictions on who can adopt in countries where such children are in desperate need, and where they openly frown on any sexual deviation from what they believe is normal/natural. The fact is, gays have been around since the dawn of time.
Legendary Apophis wrote:This idiotic law in France proposed by socialists and backed by communists and far left while being rejected by most of right wing and far right wing and even a great part of centrists and countryside left wingers. I know of homosexuals who are against this law because they do believe marriage should remain the same and that there's no point for them to ask it.
They must be a slim minority in that regard, then. I know plenty of homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, transexual, and asexual individuals who choose not to accept the fundamentalist belief that they are not equal to other human beings.
Legendary Apophis wrote:Not to mention that reducing all homosexuals to LGBT is quite...disrespectful.
Yes, reducing it to an acronym is silly, but LGBTQ does at least show more variety in sexuality than the simple reference of "gays" and "homosexuals" when those were the only terms used to discuss LGBTQ individuals in political debates/forums.
Legendary Apophis wrote:With marriage comes adoption (rejected by most countries around the world except South Africa, Canada and Western European nations) while there's already in my country at least, a much bigger demand of children than children available to be adopted, increasing demand would solve nothing at all.
Well, there are plenty of kids who need homes in America. And again with this Marriage = adoption malarkey. ](*,) No it doesn't.
Legendary Apophis wrote:Not to mention that Brazil celebrated in August their first triple marriage (go check BBC News World if you don't believe me), meaning, three people married together, and it's already asked by LGBT couples. Polygamy or polyandry isn't really what I would call progress, but it will be quite funny to see Islam radicals agreeing with "political correct progressists"
Really?!?! Polygamy has been going on forever! Men have had several wives since before the Bible. Mormons have multiple wives; it's legal in certain Provinces in Canada; it's acceptable withing certain religious groups.

Legendary Apophis wrote:@Guild, it's because they want to troublemake, most won't marry, it's just to assault the meaning of marriage, that's why they don't want civil union. It's for symbolism. Attack marriage and defeat its meaning.
Yes. That's entirely it. It has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to marry the person you love, have a right to the tax deductions, or to see them when they are in hospital with a fatal illness, or be able to claim Spousal Privilege in legal matters, or any of the other millions of rights a citizen receives when they get a Marriage Certificate from the Government which are not recognized in a Civil Partnership/Union.

Being gay isn't natural? Then why is there a percentage of the animal population which tends to be at least bisexual, if not fully gay? Why has it been going on since the dawn of freaking time? There are many scientists who postulate deviation from heterosexual behavior is a natural form of population control.

Guild wrote:
Psyko wrote: If Civil Partnerships/Unions were the same thing as marriage, those opposed to same-sex marriage would be just as upset with them being in place as they are with legal marriage. Again with the second-class treatment of same-sex couples.

They can't even adopt in most states. Because of sexual orientation. More discrimination against them for who they decide to have sex with on a regular basis. **Filtered** ridiculous.


gay couples can adopt as far as I am aware in the UK..

also you're assuming that people would be upset if they have the same rights, maybe in the US, I believe that its a case of religious people believeing that gay couples shouldnt be married in their institution. nothign to do with legal rights.

and if this upsets gay couples then maybe this religion isnt for them ..

(btw im not particularly religious)
Then that's wonderful in the UK.

I am not assuming anything about people being upset that they have the same rights. There are two factions:
1) Those who are upset because homosexual couples exist. Period. And to allow such a couple to exist and fornicate with one another is appalling and unnatural.
2) Those who stick to their religious perspective and stake claim on the term "marriage" when the term never even originated with Christianity.

But there is a lot of debate about which benefits should be allowed to same-sex couples. "What if they are abusing the legal system by marrying their best friend but not actually being in love with each other?" The film "I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry" portrayed this in a comedic way, but the fact was the two men were scrutinized heavily by the government to ensure they really were a gay couple if their union was going to be legal. Such scrutiny doesn't exist when two heterosexual people decide to marry for legal reasons, unless one of them is a foreigner.
愛美
Section Admin of
General and the GC
Image
Image
User avatar
Remedy™
Forum Intermediate
Posts: 976
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 10:04 am
Alliance: MaYHem
Race: Tauri
ID: 1933065
Alternate name(s): Eminent Domain
Location: Infront of my computer
Contact:

Re: Gay Marriage? in THE UK? WHAT IS THIS

[spoiler]
Psyko wrote:
Legendary Apophis wrote:I am strongly opposed to the denaturation of marriage whether it is civil or religious (even more I'd be obviously in this case).
Of course you are.
Legendary Apophis wrote:Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.
Only if you are speaking purely from a fundamental religious belief system.
Legendary Apophis wrote:With marriage comes the case of children, and we are all children of a mother and a father, so is Nature.
People get married all the time and choose not to have children. People also have children without being married. Not the best argument, Pops.
Legendary Apophis wrote:Not to mention all the troubles coming within countries who already accepted the "scientifically-made" children, where now they have to consider "parent 3 and parent 4" just due to the divorce/remarriage, the "assisted medical procreation" (for lesbians)
Pretty sure it's been used for straight couples experiencing fertility problems for about 2 decades before these lesbians the process was supposedly created for, according to you.
and the "for others gestation" (for gays)
For men who want to make money by jerking off (it's been a joke in the US for all of my life), or for those same straight couples who have fertility problems due to the man's sperm count.
Legendary Apophis wrote:with givers of sperm or incubator females (remember the quote I posted few weeks ago about renting female belly by a LGBT socialist lobbyist millionaire, it's a LGBT demand).
Straight women who can't carry a child to term have been using surrogate mothers for decades.
Legendary Apophis wrote:With marriage comes adoption, and Russia (I am glad they took a clear stance) declared that french gay couples won't be able to adopt children from Russia.
Another definitive statement which is completely baseless. Marriage != adoption. Marriage in general != children. Russia can put whatever restrictions they like on out-of-country adoptions, as is their right.
Legendary Apophis wrote:Same goes for many Eastern Europe countries, for most African countries, as well as many Asian countries who will probably declare that later.
Many Asian countries have strict laws about adoption these days because US celebrities have made adopted Asian babies a fad, and they are having issues with population control because many Asian cultures devalue daughters and they are starting to run out of women to help repopulate the next generation. I'm sure they have plenty of restrictions on who can adopt in countries where such children are in desperate need, and where they openly frown on any sexual deviation from what they believe is normal/natural. The fact is, gays have been around since the dawn of time.
Legendary Apophis wrote:This idiotic law in France proposed by socialists and backed by communists and far left while being rejected by most of right wing and far right wing and even a great part of centrists and countryside left wingers. I know of homosexuals who are against this law because they do believe marriage should remain the same and that there's no point for them to ask it.
They must be a slim minority in that regard, then. I know plenty of homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, transexual, and asexual individuals who choose not to accept the fundamentalist belief that they are not equal to other human beings.
Legendary Apophis wrote:Not to mention that reducing all homosexuals to LGBT is quite...disrespectful.
Yes, reducing it to an acronym is silly, but LGBTQ does at least show more variety in sexuality than the simple reference of "gays" and "homosexuals" when those were the only terms used to discuss LGBTQ individuals in political debates/forums.
Legendary Apophis wrote:With marriage comes adoption (rejected by most countries around the world except South Africa, Canada and Western European nations) while there's already in my country at least, a much bigger demand of children than children available to be adopted, increasing demand would solve nothing at all.
Well, there are plenty of kids who need homes in America. And again with this Marriage = adoption malarkey. ](*,) No it doesn't.
Legendary Apophis wrote:Not to mention that Brazil celebrated in August their first triple marriage (go check BBC News World if you don't believe me), meaning, three people married together, and it's already asked by LGBT couples. Polygamy or polyandry isn't really what I would call progress, but it will be quite funny to see Islam radicals agreeing with "political correct progressists"
Really?!?! Polygamy has been going on forever! Men have had several wives since before the Bible. Mormons have multiple wives; it's legal in certain Provinces in Canada; it's acceptable withing certain religious groups.

Legendary Apophis wrote:@Guild, it's because they want to troublemake, most won't marry, it's just to assault the meaning of marriage, that's why they don't want civil union. It's for symbolism. Attack marriage and defeat its meaning.
Yes. That's entirely it. It has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to marry the person you love, have a right to the tax deductions, or to see them when they are in hospital with a fatal illness, or be able to claim Spousal Privilege in legal matters, or any of the other millions of rights a citizen receives when they get a Marriage Certificate from the Government which are not recognized in a Civil Partnership/Union.

Being gay isn't natural? Then why is there a percentage of the animal population which tends to be at least bisexual, if not fully gay? Why has it been going on since the dawn of freaking time? There are many scientists who postulate deviation from heterosexual behavior is a natural form of population control.

Guild wrote:
Psyko wrote: If Civil Partnerships/Unions were the same thing as marriage, those opposed to same-sex marriage would be just as upset with them being in place as they are with legal marriage. Again with the second-class treatment of same-sex couples.

They can't even adopt in most states. Because of sexual orientation. More discrimination against them for who they decide to have sex with on a regular basis. **Filtered** ridiculous.


gay couples can adopt as far as I am aware in the UK..

also you're assuming that people would be upset if they have the same rights, maybe in the US, I believe that its a case of religious people believeing that gay couples shouldnt be married in their institution. nothign to do with legal rights.

and if this upsets gay couples then maybe this religion isnt for them ..

(btw im not particularly religious)
Then that's wonderful in the UK.

I am not assuming anything about people being upset that they have the same rights. There are two factions:
1) Those who are upset because homosexual couples exist. Period. And to allow such a couple to exist and fornicate with one another is appalling and unnatural.
2) Those who stick to their religious perspective and stake claim on the term "marriage" when the term never even originated with Christianity.

But there is a lot of debate about which benefits should be allowed to same-sex couples. "What if they are abusing the legal system by marrying their best friend but not actually being in love with each other?" The film "I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry" portrayed this in a comedic way, but the fact was the two men were scrutinized heavily by the government to ensure they really were a gay couple if their union was going to be legal. Such scrutiny doesn't exist when two heterosexual people decide to marry for legal reasons, unless one of them is a foreigner.[/quote][/spoiler]
Agree with basically everything that you said. Thank you very much for making points so that I don't have to. I Lol'd hard when LA said that marriage = children and basically blaming gays for Polygamy, like they started it. Take all the bad things that anyone does and assign it to the mass that they have to do with. Let's have a generalization party, it sounds fun. NOT.
User avatar
Legendary Apophis
Forum History
Posts: 13681
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:54 pm
Alliance: Generations
Race: System Lord
ID: 7889
Alternate name(s): Apophis the Great
Location: Ha'TaK

Re: Gay Marriage? in THE UK? WHAT IS THIS

Psyko wrote:
Legendary Apophis wrote:I am strongly opposed to the denaturation of marriage whether it is civil or religious (even more I'd be obviously in this case).
Of course you are.
Legendary Apophis wrote:Marriage is the union between a man and a woman.
Only if you are speaking purely from a fundamental religious belief system. No, marriage IS marriage. The civil marriage is a copycat from religious marriage and it only differs in the fact it's opened to non religious people. But marriage remains what it is, union between a male and a female. Not to be confused with civil unions which is another thing.
Legendary Apophis wrote:With marriage comes the case of children, and we are all children of a mother and a father, so is Nature.
People get married all the time and choose not to have children. People also have children without being married. Not the best argument, Pops. People who have children without being married are couples made of a man and a woman, so I don't really see how it counters me. Also, obviously that with marriage comes parenthood, because LGBT would scream unequality if they were able to marry but not to have children whether it's by adoption or science-made children
Legendary Apophis wrote:Not to mention all the troubles coming within countries who already accepted the "scientifically-made" children, where now they have to consider "parent 3 and parent 4" just due to the divorce/remarriage, the "assisted medical procreation" (for lesbians)
Pretty sure it's been used for straight couples experiencing fertility problems for about 2 decades before these lesbians the process was supposedly created for, according to you.
and the "for others gestation" (for gays)
For men who want to make money by jerking off (it's been a joke in the US for all of my life), or for those same straight couples who have fertility problems due to the man's sperm count.
But fertility problems come from an illness or a dysfunction. It's not a matter of compatibility. You can have the two most fertile homosexuals together they won't ever make a child themselves because they cannot.
Legendary Apophis wrote:with givers of sperm or incubator females (remember the quote I posted few weeks ago about renting female belly by a LGBT socialist lobbyist millionaire, it's a LGBT demand).
Straight women who can't carry a child to term have been using surrogate mothers for decades.
Once again, it's a health problem you refer to. Different issue.
Legendary Apophis wrote:With marriage comes adoption, and Russia (I am glad they took a clear stance) declared that french gay couples won't be able to adopt children from Russia.
Another definitive statement which is completely baseless. Marriage != adoption. Marriage in general != children. Russia can put whatever restrictions they like on out-of-country adoptions, as is their right.
It's a non argument, if a country enables marriage only with the reasoning of "equality", LGBT will ask (that's what they exactly do in France, I suggest you to read about France projects on the matter, the law is marriage+adoption. And I'm sure if it isn't the case already in the UK, it would be brought in the table very soon). I quoted Russia not because of what they do in their own country, but the fact them, and other countries, will reject demands of adoption by gay couples. That's why I linked to RT article, they made it clear French gay couples won't be able to adopt.
Legendary Apophis wrote:Same goes for many Eastern Europe countries, for most African countries, as well as many Asian countries who will probably declare that later.
Many Asian countries have strict laws about adoption these days because US celebrities have made adopted Asian babies a fad, and they are having issues with population control because many Asian cultures devalue daughters and they are starting to run out of women to help repopulate the next generation. I'm sure they have plenty of restrictions on who can adopt in countries where such children are in desperate need, and where they openly frown on any sexual deviation from what they believe is normal/natural. The fact is, gays have been around since the dawn of time.My point is that adoption might become harder (and it's not me who says so but professionals of adoption sector) even for straight couples due to suspicious opinion regarding adopters from x or y countries which enabled gay adoption. Apparently Russia even has a black list for couples who "fake" and pretend to be straight while in fact having a third person being there to have the deal done
Legendary Apophis wrote:This idiotic law in France proposed by socialists and backed by communists and far left while being rejected by most of right wing and far right wing and even a great part of centrists and countryside left wingers. I know of homosexuals who are against this law because they do believe marriage should remain the same and that there's no point for them to ask it.
They must be a slim minority in that regard, then. I know plenty of homosexual, bisexual, pansexual, transexual, and asexual individuals who choose not to accept the fundamentalist belief that they are not equal to other human beings.LGBT ARE a minority in France. Many homosexuals don't like at all the way they portray homosexuals, all in leather clothes walking in "gay pride". I mean, I would myself dislike if their were "Straight Prides" made of clichés demonstrating and creating an overall image to the community that doesn't necessarily define the lot. Many homosexuals in France don't consider themselves homosexuals as their first defining criteria. LGBT do it, but many homosexuals in France don't want to be reduced to their sexual attraction. They are more than that. Just as we have people from ethnic minorities in France who are really hostile towards the minorities associations. They consider their color or ethnicity isn't the main and first thing defining them. These people are the ones who happen to reduce the prejudices and hostility because they aren't obsessed about their difference trying to lobby about particular stuff about them. For example, affirmative action. There is no such thing as "positive discrimination". It's a nonsense.
Legendary Apophis wrote:Not to mention that reducing all homosexuals to LGBT is quite...disrespectful.
Yes, reducing it to an acronym is silly, but LGBTQ does at least show more variety in sexuality than the simple reference of "gays" and "homosexuals" when those were the only terms used to discuss LGBTQ individuals in political debates/forums.
My point was that not all homosexuals want to be associated with LGBT because their homosexuality isn't for them the first thing they consider to define them. They are homosexuals and won't scream it loud just as I won't scream out loud I am straight. These homosexuals also greatly dislike the caricature made of them due to LGBT "gay pride". They would tell "we aren't all Village People-alike for crying out loud".
Legendary Apophis wrote:With marriage comes adoption (rejected by most countries around the world except South Africa, Canada and Western European nations) while there's already in my country at least, a much bigger demand of children than children available to be adopted, increasing demand would solve nothing at all.
Well, there are plenty of kids who need homes in America. And again with this Marriage = adoption malarkey. ](*,) No it doesn't.
The one generates the other. France case is a good example. Considering "equality" is the reason to lobby to death the denaturation of marriage, if gay couples can marry, they would scream they aren't equal if they cannot adopt. Let's avoid playing naive card should we?
Legendary Apophis wrote:Not to mention that Brazil celebrated in August their first triple marriage (go check BBC News World if you don't believe me), meaning, three people married together, and it's already asked by LGBT couples. Polygamy or polyandry isn't really what I would call progress, but it will be quite funny to see Islam radicals agreeing with "political correct progressists"
Really?!?! Polygamy has been going on forever! Men have had several wives since before the Bible. Mormons have multiple wives; it's legal in certain Provinces in Canada; it's acceptable withing certain religious groups.
Yes and in many Western countries it's forbidden, and it's something that "progressists" in countries where it's been forbidden want to bring it back in the name of "progress" (as if Mormon radicals and islam radicals were the incarnation of progress, but well...)

Legendary Apophis wrote:@Guild, it's because they want to troublemake, most won't marry, it's just to assault the meaning of marriage, that's why they don't want civil union. It's for symbolism. Attack marriage and defeat its meaning.
Yes. That's entirely it. It has absolutely nothing to do with wanting to marry the person you love, have a right to the tax deductions, or to see them when they are in hospital with a fatal illness, or be able to claim Spousal Privilege in legal matters, or any of the other millions of rights a citizen receives when they get a Marriage Certificate from the Government which are not recognized in a Civil Partnership/Union.
But marriage itself isn't defined by love, it's people who marry who usually love each others, but you also have marriages where people do it to unite to families and other cases. But the thing is, you cannot marry just because you love a set of x people. Or else, you have cases like in Brazil and have three people marry together.

Being gay isn't natural? Then why is there a percentage of the animal population which tends to be at least bisexual, if not fully gay? Why has it been going on since the dawn of freaking time? There are many scientists who postulate deviation from heterosexual behavior is a natural form of population control.
That doesn't mean marriage should be changed for this argument.
[/quote]

Agree with basically everything that you said. Thank you very much for making points so that I don't have to. I Lol'd hard when LA said that marriage = children and basically blaming gays for Polygamy, like they started it. Take all the bad things that anyone does and assign it to the mass that they have to do with. Let's have a generalization party, it sounds fun. NOT.

Before loling hard I'd suggest you to learn about the project of marriage+adoption in one and only law, my country is about to force. As far as I know, one cannot adopt anything else than children. People adopting cars? My turn to lol hard! :-D As for the rest of the blah I don't think I have to give an answer, not worth it.
User avatar
Remedy™
Forum Intermediate
Posts: 976
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 10:04 am
Alliance: MaYHem
Race: Tauri
ID: 1933065
Alternate name(s): Eminent Domain
Location: Infront of my computer
Contact:

Re: Gay Marriage? in THE UK? WHAT IS THIS

Legendary Apophis wrote:
Remedy™ wrote:Agree with basically everything that you said. Thank you very much for making points so that I don't have to. I Lol'd hard when LA said that marriage = children and basically blaming gays for Polygamy, like they started it. Take all the bad things that anyone does and assign it to the mass that they have to do with. Let's have a generalization party, it sounds fun. NOT.

Before loling hard I'd suggest you to learn about the project of marriage+adoption in one and only law, my country is about to force. As far as I know, one cannot adopt anything else than children. People adopting cars? My turn to lol hard! :-D As for the rest of the blah I don't think I have to give an answer, not worth it.

That's fine, because most of what you've said so far wasn't worth the read.
User avatar
Legendary Apophis
Forum History
Posts: 13681
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:54 pm
Alliance: Generations
Race: System Lord
ID: 7889
Alternate name(s): Apophis the Great
Location: Ha'TaK

Re: Gay Marriage? in THE UK? WHAT IS THIS

Remedy™ wrote:
Legendary Apophis wrote:
Remedy™ wrote:Agree with basically everything that you said. Thank you very much for making points so that I don't have to. I Lol'd hard when LA said that marriage = children and basically blaming gays for Polygamy, like they started it. Take all the bad things that anyone does and assign it to the mass that they have to do with. Let's have a generalization party, it sounds fun. NOT.

Before loling hard I'd suggest you to learn about the project of marriage+adoption in one and only law, my country is about to force. As far as I know, one cannot adopt anything else than children. People adopting cars? My turn to lol hard! :-D As for the rest of the blah I don't think I have to give an answer, not worth it.

That's fine, because most of what you've said so far wasn't worth the read.

I provided arguments, you didn't. If you don't want to read counter arguments...well. How do we call that. One sided debate? Don't really see the point to debate about how much you agree with the others... :-" I provided my arguments, Psyko provided hers to counter me, I replied. In a debate, you have two sides. That's how it is.

Board index ‹ Misc ‹ Debate Central ‹ General intelligent discussion topics :-k
User avatar
Juliette
Verified
The Queen
Posts: 31802
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:57 pm
Race: Royalty
ID: 4323
Alternate name(s): Cersei Lannister
Location: Ultima Thule

Re: Gay Marriage? in THE UK? WHAT IS THIS

Remedy™ wrote:That's fine, because most of what you've said so far wasn't worth the read.
Come now, Remedy. You do realise this is supposed to be a discussion, not a fail-fest with people saying 'omg WTH did u just sai u racisitic homophobe' (or "lol You are not worth reading", which is a contribution of a similarly worthless level).

Either agree with one of the parties involved, or provide arguments why the other is wrong. Being an ass does not get you anywhere, and that is coming from someone who disagrees with the person whose comments you just marginalised. [-X Extremely poor form, sir.
Image
User avatar
Remedy™
Forum Intermediate
Posts: 976
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 10:04 am
Alliance: MaYHem
Race: Tauri
ID: 1933065
Alternate name(s): Eminent Domain
Location: Infront of my computer
Contact:

Re: Gay Marriage? in THE UK? WHAT IS THIS

Juliette wrote:Either agree with one of the parties involved, or provide arguments why the other is wrong. Being an ass does not get you anywhere, and that is coming from someone who disagrees with the person whose comments you just marginalised. [-X Extremely poor form, sir.

Hardly, if you care to read above, I did agree, with Psyko.
He said it wasn't worth the argument with me, I said it's not worth reading what he has to say.

Fact is, I live in a Christian area and grew up Catholic and now I live in one of the states in the US that allows Gay Marriage. I don't have to read some situation in France to know how it's affecting people.

Trying to define marriage as a union between man and woman is simply outdated. I love how we pick things out of religion that condemn people, even though it was for a much different time.

I'm obviously for gay marriage, and not changing it to Gay Civil Agreement. Why should we have to change the name for the same thing?

Limiting what someone can do based on the gender they prefer is ignorant in my opinion and much easier to agree with when you're from the opposite side.

I've never seen a legitimate argument against Gay marriage that didn't bring religion into the situation.
User avatar
Legendary Apophis
Forum History
Posts: 13681
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:54 pm
Alliance: Generations
Race: System Lord
ID: 7889
Alternate name(s): Apophis the Great
Location: Ha'TaK

Re: Gay Marriage? in THE UK? WHAT IS THIS

Remedy™ wrote:
Juliette wrote:Either agree with one of the parties involved, or provide arguments why the other is wrong. Being an ass does not get you anywhere, and that is coming from someone who disagrees with the person whose comments you just marginalised. [-X Extremely poor form, sir.

Hardly, if you care to read above, I did agree, with Psyko.
He said it wasn't worth the argument with me, I said it's not worth reading what he has to say.

I replied to your argument of "loling hard about marriage and children", but the rest, it wasn't arguments. This time, you provided arguments...

Fact is, I live in a Christian area and grew up Catholic and now I live in one of the states in the US that allows Gay Marriage. I don't have to read some situation in France to know how it's affecting people.

Trying to define marriage as a union between man and woman is simply outdated. I love how we pick things out of religion that condemn people, even though it was for a much different time.

It's not "outdated" it's the way marriage is. That's where I strongly disagree. "Progress" for the sake of "progress" isn't something I would defend. Because common good goes beyond particular groups demands. If society was to follow each group's demands, it would be impossible to follow...which happens in countries led by "progressists", it becomes impossible to manage as it goes chaotic as you cannot find the limit then (offer the hand, they ask for the arm, my country is particularly good at it). Same as offering vote for foreigners (non-EU foreigners in EU case), it's nonsense...
If you talked about mixed marriages however I'd agree with you it was a right thing to be legalized: mixed marriages don't go against definition of marriage. An African American man and a "Caucasian" woman are a couple that fits within marriage definition.

I'm obviously for gay marriage, and not changing it to Gay Civil Agreement. Why should we have to change the name for the same thing?
Because marriage is an institution regarding an union between a man and a woman. It doesn't have to do only with Christianity. Sure that in Roman republic they divorced as often as one nowadays changes house location, but it was still a man and a woman. Both the roots being Romans and Christianity, both had marriage man+woman. Everyone can marry, as long as it's with a person from the different sex. There's no such thing as "second class citizens" in our countries.

Limiting what someone can do based no the gender they prefer is ignorant in my opinion and much easier to agree with when you're from the opposite side.

I'm sorry I didn't understand this...

I've never seen a legitimate argument against Gay marriage that didn't bring religion into the situation.

It's a matter of subjectivity I suppose.
User avatar
Remedy™
Forum Intermediate
Posts: 976
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 10:04 am
Alliance: MaYHem
Race: Tauri
ID: 1933065
Alternate name(s): Eminent Domain
Location: Infront of my computer
Contact:

Re: Gay Marriage? in THE UK? WHAT IS THIS

Legendary Apophis wrote:
Remedy™ wrote:
Juliette wrote:Either agree with one of the parties involved, or provide arguments why the other is wrong. Being an ass does not get you anywhere, and that is coming from someone who disagrees with the person whose comments you just marginalised. [-X Extremely poor form, sir.

Hardly, if you care to read above, I did agree, with Psyko.
He said it wasn't worth the argument with me, I said it's not worth reading what he has to say.

I replied to your argument of "loling hard about marriage and children", but the rest, it wasn't arguments. This time, you provided arguments...

Fact is, I live in a Christian area and grew up Catholic and now I live in one of the states in the US that allows Gay Marriage. I don't have to read some situation in France to know how it's affecting people.

Trying to define marriage as a union between man and woman is simply outdated. I love how we pick things out of religion that condemn people, even though it was for a much different time.

It's not "outdated" it's the way marriage is. That's where I strongly disagree. "Progress" for the sake of "progress" isn't something I would defend. Because common good goes beyond particular groups demands. If society was to follow each group's demands, it would be impossible to follow...which happens in countries led by "progressists", it becomes impossible to manage as it goes chaotic as you cannot find the limit then (offer the hand, they ask for the arm, my country is particularly good at it). Same as offering vote for foreigners (non-EU foreigners in EU case), it's nonsense... It's hardly progress for the sake of progress. It's not some random group of people. It's not the female librarians that live on the 4th block of 3rd street. These are legitimate concerns from a large portion of the population. It's not at all like a foreign voter as most of these people were in fact born here and they aren't trying to vote for president (US case), they are fighting for equal rights with their heterosexual counter-parts.

I'm obviously for gay marriage, and not changing it to Gay Civil Agreement. Why should we have to change the name for the same thing?
Because marriage is an institution regarding an union between a man and a woman. It doesn't have to do only with Christianity. Sure that in Roman republic they divorced as often as one nowadays changes house location, but it was still a man and a woman. Both the roots being Romans and Christianity, both had marriage man+woman. Everyone can marry, as long as it's with a person from the different sex. There's no such thing as "second class citizens" in our countries.
You keep going here. That marriage is between a man and a woman. Because why exactly? Religion and the Romans? That obviously makes sense. Should it also be okay to have slaves and mass murder trying to take over the world? You only proved my point that those thoughts are indeed Outdated. "Yes, EVERYONE can marry, BUT...." is my issue. You put stipulations on it that you hardly have the right to.

Limiting what someone can do based no the gender they prefer is ignorant in my opinion and much easier to agree with when you're from the opposite side.

I'm sorry I didn't understand this... Not surprised. I'm simply saying that it's easy to say Gay marriage is wrong when you aren't gay. Would you find it okay if you France suddenly decided people named Jim couldn't drive cars? Changing marriage for certain people IS taking away rights. What about felons? Should we take away their right to marry, like we do others of their rights? Apparently not, just the gays.

I've never seen a legitimate argument against Gay marriage that didn't bring religion into the situation.

It's a matter of subjectivity I suppose. Let's hear something that isn't based on religion here. Give me something that says gays can't marry that isn't based on the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman, which is truly based on nothing. Separation from church and state my man. We should never let religion make its way into politics, as it only helps those that are part of it. Next... it'll be that you can only marry if you believe in God. Ya know, cuz it's against the 10 commandments to feel otherwise.

Forgive me, as sometimes I begin to ramble.
User avatar
Legendary Apophis
Forum History
Posts: 13681
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 12:54 pm
Alliance: Generations
Race: System Lord
ID: 7889
Alternate name(s): Apophis the Great
Location: Ha'TaK

Re: Gay Marriage? in THE UK? WHAT IS THIS

Remedy™ wrote:
Legendary Apophis wrote:
Remedy™ wrote:
Juliette wrote:Either agree with one of the parties involved, or provide arguments why the other is wrong. Being an ass does not get you anywhere, and that is coming from someone who disagrees with the person whose comments you just marginalised. [-X Extremely poor form, sir.

Hardly, if you care to read above, I did agree, with Psyko.
He said it wasn't worth the argument with me, I said it's not worth reading what he has to say.

I replied to your argument of "loling hard about marriage and children", but the rest, it wasn't arguments. This time, you provided arguments...

Fact is, I live in a Christian area and grew up Catholic and now I live in one of the states in the US that allows Gay Marriage. I don't have to read some situation in France to know how it's affecting people.

Trying to define marriage as a union between man and woman is simply outdated. I love how we pick things out of religion that condemn people, even though it was for a much different time.

It's not "outdated" it's the way marriage is. That's where I strongly disagree. "Progress" for the sake of "progress" isn't something I would defend. Because common good goes beyond particular groups demands. If society was to follow each group's demands, it would be impossible to follow...which happens in countries led by "progressists", it becomes impossible to manage as it goes chaotic as you cannot find the limit then (offer the hand, they ask for the arm, my country is particularly good at it). Same as offering vote for foreigners (non-EU foreigners in EU case), it's nonsense... It's hardly progress for the sake of progress. It's not some random group of people. It's not the female librarians that live on the 4th block of 3rd street. These are legitimate concerns from a large portion of the population. It's not at all like a foreign voter as most of these people were in fact born here and they aren't trying to vote for president (US case), they are fighting for equal rights with their heterosexual counter-parts.

I'm obviously for gay marriage, and not changing it to Gay Civil Agreement. Why should we have to change the name for the same thing?
Because marriage is an institution regarding an union between a man and a woman. It doesn't have to do only with Christianity. Sure that in Roman republic they divorced as often as one nowadays changes house location, but it was still a man and a woman. Both the roots being Romans and Christianity, both had marriage man+woman. Everyone can marry, as long as it's with a person from the different sex. There's no such thing as "second class citizens" in our countries.
You keep going here. That marriage is between a man and a woman. Because why exactly? Religion and the Romans? That obviously makes sense. Should it also be okay to have slaves and mass murder trying to take over the world? You only proved my point that those thoughts are indeed Outdated. "Yes, EVERYONE can marry, BUT...." is my issue. You put stipulations on it that you hardly have the right to.

Limiting what someone can do based no the gender they prefer is ignorant in my opinion and much easier to agree with when you're from the opposite side.

I'm sorry I didn't understand this... Not surprised. I'm simply saying that it's easy to say Gay marriage is wrong when you aren't gay. Would you find it okay if you France suddenly decided people named Jim couldn't drive cars? Changing marriage for certain people IS taking away rights. What about felons? Should we take away their right to marry, like we do others of their rights? Apparently not, just the gays.

I've never seen a legitimate argument against Gay marriage that didn't bring religion into the situation.

It's a matter of subjectivity I suppose. Let's hear something that isn't based on religion here. Give me something that says gays can't marry that isn't based on the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman, which is truly based on nothing. Separation from church and state my man. We should never let religion make its way into politics, as it only helps those that are part of it. Next... it'll be that you can only marry if you believe in God. Ya know, cuz it's against the 10 commandments to feel otherwise.

Forgive me, as sometimes I begin to ramble.


1. It is a group trying to change the way the marriage is, and in marriage there is the Filiation. It's from a law point of view that what enables marriage and what is marriage is changed when you enable changes. The way LGBT works, if you allow same-sex marriage, you will also have to accept same-sex adoption ect...meaning the filiation will be changed. Children not anymore coming from a mother and a father but now having two fathers and no mother, or two mothers and no father. Which definitely is a thing one needs during teenage, to have the mother and the father considering each has their role and particularities.
2. Because it is the way our societies defined marriage. It's part of the civilization, of the culture, ect...I don't see what slavery has to do with it considering slavery means someone is not free and property of someone else. As far as I know homosexuals can have a salary for their work, vote, don't have to ask their master to go there or here, ect...
3. As I said, some of the front opponents to the same-sex marriage/adoption law happen to be homosexuals in my country. I also did a long paragraph to precise difference between an homosexual and a LGBT to explain why homosexuals could be against it.
4. As I said already, because when marriage come, adoption comes, and the question of children and filiation too. Don't say I am obsessed, it is NOT me who asked for this law to be both marriage-adoption, it is not me who asks for both marriage/adoption "equality". If you want to know why it's not just a matter of marriage but also a matter of adoption and children, ask LGBT lobbies why they want all and not just marriage. They will tell you equality for marriage isn't sufficient and that adoption and right to have children follows. Even though technically a same-sex couple cannot have children...Some of the people who oppose that law said "they didn't care about same-sex marriage" but cared a lot more for same-sex adoption against which they disagreed. But considering one "equality" is asking for another and my country is a good example to prove it, if you agree for one, it will be hard to disagree for the others later...you would be considered as "hypocrite" and half-equalizer or whatever.

Now sorry but my Timezone asks me to go to bed...
Last edited by Legendary Apophis on Tue Feb 05, 2013 5:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
Image
Spoiler

Incarnate - LG - LG1 - LG2 - LG3 - LG4 - AG - EAG ~ AGoL - Completed
Spoiler
<Dmonix> Damnit Jim how come every conversation with you always ends up discussing something deep and meaningful?
<Dmonix> We always end up discussing male/female differences or politics or football
<Dmonix> All the really important issues in life
User avatar
Remedy™
Forum Intermediate
Posts: 976
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 10:04 am
Alliance: MaYHem
Race: Tauri
ID: 1933065
Alternate name(s): Eminent Domain
Location: Infront of my computer
Contact:

Re: Gay Marriage? in THE UK? WHAT IS THIS

Legendary Apophis wrote:
Remedy™ wrote:
Legendary Apophis wrote:
Remedy™ wrote:
Juliette wrote:Either agree with one of the parties involved, or provide arguments why the other is wrong. Being an ass does not get you anywhere, and that is coming from someone who disagrees with the person whose comments you just marginalised. [-X Extremely poor form, sir.

Hardly, if you care to read above, I did agree, with Psyko.
He said it wasn't worth the argument with me, I said it's not worth reading what he has to say.

I replied to your argument of "loling hard about marriage and children", but the rest, it wasn't arguments. This time, you provided arguments...

Fact is, I live in a Christian area and grew up Catholic and now I live in one of the states in the US that allows Gay Marriage. I don't have to read some situation in France to know how it's affecting people.

Trying to define marriage as a union between man and woman is simply outdated. I love how we pick things out of religion that condemn people, even though it was for a much different time.

It's not "outdated" it's the way marriage is. That's where I strongly disagree. "Progress" for the sake of "progress" isn't something I would defend. Because common good goes beyond particular groups demands. If society was to follow each group's demands, it would be impossible to follow...which happens in countries led by "progressists", it becomes impossible to manage as it goes chaotic as you cannot find the limit then (offer the hand, they ask for the arm, my country is particularly good at it). Same as offering vote for foreigners (non-EU foreigners in EU case), it's nonsense... It's hardly progress for the sake of progress. It's not some random group of people. It's not the female librarians that live on the 4th block of 3rd street. These are legitimate concerns from a large portion of the population. It's not at all like a foreign voter as most of these people were in fact born here and they aren't trying to vote for president (US case), they are fighting for equal rights with their heterosexual counter-parts.

I'm obviously for gay marriage, and not changing it to Gay Civil Agreement. Why should we have to change the name for the same thing?
Because marriage is an institution regarding an union between a man and a woman. It doesn't have to do only with Christianity. Sure that in Roman republic they divorced as often as one nowadays changes house location, but it was still a man and a woman. Both the roots being Romans and Christianity, both had marriage man+woman. Everyone can marry, as long as it's with a person from the different sex. There's no such thing as "second class citizens" in our countries.
You keep going here. That marriage is between a man and a woman. Because why exactly? Religion and the Romans? That obviously makes sense. Should it also be okay to have slaves and mass murder trying to take over the world? You only proved my point that those thoughts are indeed Outdated. "Yes, EVERYONE can marry, BUT...." is my issue. You put stipulations on it that you hardly have the right to.

Limiting what someone can do based no the gender they prefer is ignorant in my opinion and much easier to agree with when you're from the opposite side.

I'm sorry I didn't understand this... Not surprised. I'm simply saying that it's easy to say Gay marriage is wrong when you aren't gay. Would you find it okay if you France suddenly decided people named Jim couldn't drive cars? Changing marriage for certain people IS taking away rights. What about felons? Should we take away their right to marry, like we do others of their rights? Apparently not, just the gays.

I've never seen a legitimate argument against Gay marriage that didn't bring religion into the situation.

It's a matter of subjectivity I suppose. Let's hear something that isn't based on religion here. Give me something that says gays can't marry that isn't based on the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman, which is truly based on nothing. Separation from church and state my man. We should never let religion make its way into politics, as it only helps those that are part of it. Next... it'll be that you can only marry if you believe in God. Ya know, cuz it's against the 10 commandments to feel otherwise.

Forgive me, as sometimes I begin to ramble.


1. It is a group trying to change the way the marriage is, and in marriage there is the Filiation. It's from a law point of view. The way LGBT works, if you allow same-sex marriage, you will also accept same-sex adoption ect...meaning the filiation will be changed. Children not anymore coming from a mother and a father.
2. Because it is the way our societies defined marriage. It's part of the civilization, of the culture, ect...I don't see what slavery has to do with it considering slavery means someone is not free. As far as I know homosexuals can have a salary for their work, vote, ect...
3. As I said, some of the front opponents to the same-sex marriage/adoption law happen to be homosexuals. I also did a long paragraph to precise difference between an homosexual and a LGBT.
4. As I said already, because when marriage come, adoption comes, and the question of children and filiation too. Don't say I am obsessed, it is NOT me who asked for this law, it is not me who asks for both marriage/adoption "equality". If you want to know why it's not just a matter of marriage but also a matter of adoption and children, ask LGBT lobbies. They will tell you equality for marriage isn't sufficient and that adoption and right to have children follows. Even though technically a same-sex couple cannot have children...

Now sorry but my Timezone asks me to go to bed...

It's not worth the trouble further. Let's hate the people. Cuz it's much more fun to have stuff that others can't, without having to work for it.

Slavery was brought in because you seemed to think your point was more valid "because the Romans did it"

I'll leave on the point that you're owing yourself something that others can't have because of who they love... and that's wrong. I don't find that opinion-based. You're not allowing the same rights to someone for something they can't control. I find it hard to believe that people with your beliefs haven't been evolved out yet.
Psyko
The Irresistible
Posts: 5636
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:09 pm
ID: 0
Location: USA

Re: Gay Marriage? in THE UK? WHAT IS THIS

Legendary Apophis wrote:
Remedy™ wrote:
Legendary Apophis wrote:
Remedy™ wrote:
Juliette wrote:Either agree with one of the parties involved, or provide arguments why the other is wrong. Being an ass does not get you anywhere, and that is coming from someone who disagrees with the person whose comments you just marginalised. [-X Extremely poor form, sir.

Hardly, if you care to read above, I did agree, with Psyko.
He said it wasn't worth the argument with me, I said it's not worth reading what he has to say.

I replied to your argument of "loling hard about marriage and children", but the rest, it wasn't arguments. This time, you provided arguments...

Fact is, I live in a Christian area and grew up Catholic and now I live in one of the states in the US that allows Gay Marriage. I don't have to read some situation in France to know how it's affecting people.

Trying to define marriage as a union between man and woman is simply outdated. I love how we pick things out of religion that condemn people, even though it was for a much different time.

It's not "outdated" it's the way marriage is. That's where I strongly disagree. "Progress" for the sake of "progress" isn't something I would defend. Because common good goes beyond particular groups demands. If society was to follow each group's demands, it would be impossible to follow...which happens in countries led by "progressists", it becomes impossible to manage as it goes chaotic as you cannot find the limit then (offer the hand, they ask for the arm, my country is particularly good at it). Same as offering vote for foreigners (non-EU foreigners in EU case), it's nonsense... It's hardly progress for the sake of progress. It's not some random group of people. It's not the female librarians that live on the 4th block of 3rd street. These are legitimate concerns from a large portion of the population. It's not at all like a foreign voter as most of these people were in fact born here and they aren't trying to vote for president (US case), they are fighting for equal rights with their heterosexual counter-parts.

I'm obviously for gay marriage, and not changing it to Gay Civil Agreement. Why should we have to change the name for the same thing?
Because marriage is an institution regarding an union between a man and a woman. It doesn't have to do only with Christianity. Sure that in Roman republic they divorced as often as one nowadays changes house location, but it was still a man and a woman. Both the roots being Romans and Christianity, both had marriage man+woman. Everyone can marry, as long as it's with a person from the different sex. There's no such thing as "second class citizens" in our countries.
You keep going here. That marriage is between a man and a woman. Because why exactly? Religion and the Romans? That obviously makes sense. Should it also be okay to have slaves and mass murder trying to take over the world? You only proved my point that those thoughts are indeed Outdated. "Yes, EVERYONE can marry, BUT...." is my issue. You put stipulations on it that you hardly have the right to.

Limiting what someone can do based no the gender they prefer is ignorant in my opinion and much easier to agree with when you're from the opposite side.

I'm sorry I didn't understand this... Not surprised. I'm simply saying that it's easy to say Gay marriage is wrong when you aren't gay. Would you find it okay if you France suddenly decided people named Jim couldn't drive cars? Changing marriage for certain people IS taking away rights. What about felons? Should we take away their right to marry, like we do others of their rights? Apparently not, just the gays.

I've never seen a legitimate argument against Gay marriage that didn't bring religion into the situation.

It's a matter of subjectivity I suppose. Let's hear something that isn't based on religion here. Give me something that says gays can't marry that isn't based on the idea that marriage is between a man and a woman, which is truly based on nothing. Separation from church and state my man. We should never let religion make its way into politics, as it only helps those that are part of it. Next... it'll be that you can only marry if you believe in God. Ya know, cuz it's against the 10 commandments to feel otherwise.

Forgive me, as sometimes I begin to ramble.


1. It is a group trying to change the way the marriage is, and in marriage there is the Filiation. It's from a law point of view that what enables marriage and what is marriage is changed when you enable changes. The way LGBT works, if you allow same-sex marriage, you will also have to accept same-sex adoption ect...meaning the filiation will be changed. Children not anymore coming from a mother and a father but now having two fathers and no mother, or two mothers and no father. Which definitely is a thing one needs during teenage, to have the mother and the father considering each has their role and particularities.
2. Because it is the way our societies defined marriage. It's part of the civilization, of the culture, ect...I don't see what slavery has to do with it considering slavery means someone is not free and property of someone else. As far as I know homosexuals can have a salary for their work, vote, don't have to ask their master to go there or here, ect...
3. As I said, some of the front opponents to the same-sex marriage/adoption law happen to be homosexuals in my country. I also did a long paragraph to precise difference between an homosexual and a LGBT to explain why homosexuals could be against it.
4. As I said already, because when marriage come, adoption comes, and the question of children and filiation too. Don't say I am obsessed, it is NOT me who asked for this law to be both marriage-adoption, it is not me who asks for both marriage/adoption "equality". If you want to know why it's not just a matter of marriage but also a matter of adoption and children, ask LGBT lobbies why they want all and not just marriage. They will tell you equality for marriage isn't sufficient and that adoption and right to have children follows. Even though technically a same-sex couple cannot have children...Some of the people who oppose that law said "they didn't care about same-sex marriage" but cared a lot more for same-sex adoption against which they disagreed. But considering one "equality" is asking for another and my country is a good example to prove it, if you agree for one, it will be hard to disagree for the others later...you would be considered as "hypocrite" and half-equalizer or whatever.

Now sorry but my Timezone asks me to go to bed...

Children come from single-parent households now, and there are quite a few who already have same-sex couples as "parents" whether from their mom/dad legal guardian finding a same-sex partner, or any number of other possibilities. So far they seem just as damaged as the rest of us, if not less-so, because they have parents who love each other and support them; their sex shouldn't matter as parents. If anything kids hate the idea of their parents actually sleeping together and prefer to think of them as sex-less entities who provide for and support them.

Just because France has linked marriage to the ability to adopt does not mean that is the case everywhere. Americans are fighting for the right to same-sex marriage, and some of those who've won that fight have moved on to adoption, but it is a much smaller portion of the population. Honestly, I find your country to be a bad example for a lot of things. You're thinking of this issue on a limited scale which only affects your country with the law currently being lobbied for, which I believe clouds your judgement; I'm considering the people the laws against gay marriage directly affect on a generalized scale.


I'll go through and reply to your counterarguments to my post when I have a chance.
愛美
Section Admin of
General and the GC
Image
Image
User avatar
Master Rahl
Forum Regular
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Dec 07, 2012 12:35 am
Alliance: KzD
Race: Aydindril
ID: 13355
Alternate name(s): Master Rahl
Location: Peoples Palace, D'Hara

Re: Gay Marriage? in THE UK? WHAT IS THIS

Wow. I am conservative with this subject, but come on people. Gay/Lesbians have always existed, in every mammal. History has been covered up to hide this, but its there. How many years (centuries?) of time has been put in this?

If 2 guys want to get married let them. If 2 women want ot get married let them. Give them the exact same laws that a man and a woman marriage have.

Forcing churches to marry them is stupid; a church can turn down a man and a woman now so why should they be forced to marry a same sex couple?

This is nowadays a government issue not a church issue like it was. And conservative people will be mad for a few decades but they will get over it, its nature.

And yes Iowa is a very liberal farming state *winds blowing the wrong direction and smells hog confinement, mmmm bacon*
[9:21:11 PM] Les Ennemis: good i like our members happy
What kind of plans would the Master Rahl have? I plan to conquer the world
Spoiler
ImageImage
Image
User avatar
Remedy™
Forum Intermediate
Posts: 976
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 10:04 am
Alliance: MaYHem
Race: Tauri
ID: 1933065
Alternate name(s): Eminent Domain
Location: Infront of my computer
Contact:

Re: Gay Marriage? in THE UK? WHAT IS THIS

The_Brute wrote:Wow. I am conservative with this subject, but come on people. Gay/Lesbians have always existed, in every mammal. History has been covered up to hide this, but its there. How many years (centuries?) of time has been put in this?

If 2 guys want to get married let them. If 2 women want ot get married let them. Give them the exact same laws that a man and a woman marriage have.

Forcing churches to marry them is stupid; a church can turn down a man and a woman now so why should they be forced to marry a same sex couple?

This is nowadays a government issue not a church issue like it was. And conservative people will be mad for a few decades but they will get over it, its nature.

And yes Iowa is a very liberal farming state *winds blowing the wrong direction and smells hog confinement, mmmm bacon*

Iowa, in most places, is hardly liberal. But, you tend to see more liberal people in bigger cities. So, they take over massive parts of the population. Any rural areas are the exact opposite.
Post Reply

Return to “General intelligent discussion topics”