Homosexual Marraige

[Mister Sandman]

To wed or not to wed.


What are your arguments?

[Brdavs]

Yes. Cos we`re not in the middle ages any more. Cos we`re supposed to live in a modern secular society that is not hostage to "values" of religion(s). Cos marriage is an institution of two persons binding together uder law for certain legal benefits; like line of inheritance, medical decisions for ones partner etc. etc. etc., why should those be reserved for only certain couples that accumulate wealth/live their life together?
Pragmatically it just makes sense. Its not fair/right to set serious obstacles in peoples way based on their bedroom preferences. It is absurd. And it only collapses when people get all religious and sanctimonious about it.

[[KMA]Avenger]

gays offend and disgust me BIG TIME!

nothing to do with religion or living in the past, its just wrong, simple as that!!!

[Brdavs]

gays offend and disgust me BIG TIME!

nothing to do with religion or living in the past, its just wrong, simple as that!!!

Care to elaborate that brilliant argument heh? As it stands it indeed has everything to do with you personal views and beliefs (influenced by the western/christhian upbringing) and 19th. century like intollerance.

I`m sure a lot of things dont sit well with a lot of people personally. Should it all be legislated and forbiden on spot?
Cos if thats the case, americans, start looking for new passports lol.

[xXxsephirothxXx]

Yes. Cos we`re not in the middle ages any more. Cos we`re supposed to live in a modern secular society that is not hostage to "values" of religion(s). Cos marriage is an institution of two persons binding together uder law for certain legal benefits; like line of inheritance, medical decisions for ones partner etc. etc. etc., why should those be reserved for only certain couples that accumulate wealth/live their life together?
Pragmatically it just makes sense. Its not fair/right to set serious obstacles in peoples way based on their bedroom preferences. It is absurd. And it only collapses when people get all religious and sanctimonious about it.

I personally wouldn't go gay.. but you make valid points, i guess yes would be the political answer. I don't agree with it... but as long as gay's don't do what they do near me I can't really complain to much.

[Juliette]

There's no point to either allowing or disallowing it.

It's like asking whether deaf people can marry. I mean.. both are handicapped, but not incapacitated. Deaf people can hear through implants or communicate through sign language. Homosexuals.. yeah, no implants or sign language is going to help cure that.. but it's basically the same thing.
Chemical imbalance at birth, genetic defect, illnesses, illnesses.

And of course Brdavs so-called "modern secular society" which seems to award importance to only the most extravagant and weird stuff. That stimulates healthy youngsters to seek out and explore the perverted side of the human psyche. And then make an entire lifestyle out of it.. pah, it's insanity.


So essentially, though there is no point to allowing or disallowing it, if forced to make a choice, I would (and will) be quite strongly against this kind of social perversion becoming an accepted standard.
What's next, allowing lepers to touch everyone at the train stations? Pfft, self-destructive society. It's crazy.

[RBR]

Yes. Cos we`re not in the middle ages any more. Cos we`re supposed to live in a modern secular society that is not hostage to "values" of religion(s). Cos marriage is an institution of two persons binding together uder law for certain legal benefits; like line of inheritance, medical decisions for ones partner etc. etc. etc., why should those be reserved for only certain couples that accumulate wealth/live their life together?
Pragmatically it just makes sense. Its not fair/right to set serious obstacles in peoples way based on their bedroom preferences. It is absurd. And it only collapses when people get all religious and sanctimonious about it.

I` just curios how you will explain this to your 5-10 years old child ....
And that krap about them adopting child's..., If you are a deranged, you should not destroy a young life, nobody has this right to play with a child`s innocent physiology, adoptions without that young one`s coherent approval, it should be this limit, adoptions to be made after driving license...

[Cole]

Mariage has been made to be the union between a man and a woman, I don't see why it should change..
Afterall, these people live freely in couples, and it's not like all heterosexual people marry when in couple, so I fail to see why they could be allowed to do it.

[Brdavs]

There's no point to either allowing or disallowing it.

It's like asking whether deaf people can marry. I mean.. both are handicapped, but not incapacitated. Deaf people can hear through implants or communicate through sign language. Homosexuals.. yeah, no implants or sign language is going to help cure that.. but it's basically the same thing.
Chemical imbalance at birth, genetic defect, illnesses, illnesses.

And of course Brdavs so-called "modern secular society" which seems to award importance to only the most extravagant and weird stuff. That stimulates healthy youngsters to seek out and explore the perverted side of the human psyche. And then make an entire lifestyle out of it.. pah, it's insanity.


So essentially, though there is no point to allowing or disallowing it, if forced to make a choice, I would (and will) be quite strongly against this kind of social perversion becoming an accepted standard.
What's next, allowing lepers to touch everyone at the train stations? Pfft, self-destructive society. It's crazy.

You being serious here LOL? Do you make a habbit of labeling traits you frown uppon as degraded illness so you can justify sweeping it under the rug lol? Going ubermench on us much herr rosenberg heh?

And there very much is a point in allowing it, or better said ammending the diction of certain regulation so that they are provided the same opportunities under law as everybody else has.

"Stimulating healthy youngsters to seek out and explore the perverted side of the human psyche"? Excuese me? I thought you classified it as a chemical imbalance at birth? Where is this fear of "coodies rubbing off on me/my vhild" coming from all of the sudden heh?


But yea, seriously, whats next... unzipping collars... nudist beaches... a society in wich one is judged as an induvidual regardless of weather or not he takes it up the shaft in the privacy of his own home... God forbid. We must preserve the sanctity of our marriage (thats failing in roughly 50% of the cases) and the harmonic fabric of our (blood crazed and insensitive to suffering and discrimination) society. God forbid heh. Clearly affording same sex couples some of the rights normal ones enjoy would shove us over the moral abbys (into the fires of hell).

I` just curios how you will explain this to your 5-10 years old child ....
And that krap about them adopting child's..., If you are a deranged, you should not destroy a young life, nobody has this right to play with a child`s innocent physiology, adoptions without that young one`s coherent approval, it should be this limit, adoptions to be made after driving license...

How will I explain him what? The notion of raising him in a nonjudgmental and openminded manner? Oh thats one sweet sweet headache heh. Yes my son/daughter will be one of the "degenerates", that much I can tell you now. And I`ll be proud of her/him.
And for the record... one could argue lengts on end that weather or not being adopted by a same sex couple is any more destructive on the child psyche/life. I`ll just point out the most obvious in this case: same sex marriage and adoption of children are 2(two) seperate "issues". They are however cleverly moulded into one by people against them both, to cloud the matter and instill fear of "what will happen to da chilr3n, think of da childr3n" into people.

Mariage has been made to be the union between a man and a woman, I don't see why it should change..
Afterall, these people live freely in couples, and it's not like all heterosexual people marry when in couple, so I fail to see why they could be allowed to do it.

heterosexual people may not marry, but the very FACT that they live as a couple creates certan legal ramifications. the wealth they accumulate is no longer each ones induvidual property but they both have a claim to it in equal shares. They both become entiteled to certain things and rights uppon the death/medical condition of their partner. Etc. Etc. Ring or no ring.
What possible reason is there not to expand these rights onto social cells that pack 2 peaches instead of one peach and one bananna, so to speak? This is not about redefining chatolic marriage or perverting the nations youth. Its about awarding basic and established rights to a segment of the population that clearly meets all the criteria, other than the one about birds and beas.

[Juliette]

There's no point to either allowing or disallowing it.

It's like asking whether deaf people can marry. I mean.. both are handicapped, but not incapacitated. Deaf people can hear through implants or communicate through sign language. Homosexuals.. yeah, no implants or sign language is going to help cure that.. but it's basically the same thing.
Chemical imbalance at birth, genetic defect, illnesses, illnesses.

And of course Brdavs so-called "modern secular society" which seems to award importance to only the most extravagant and weird stuff. That stimulates healthy youngsters to seek out and explore the perverted side of the human psyche. And then make an entire lifestyle out of it.. pah, it's insanity.


So essentially, though there is no point to allowing or disallowing it, if forced to make a choice, I would (and will) be quite strongly against this kind of social perversion becoming an accepted standard.
What's next, allowing lepers to touch everyone at the train stations? Pfft, self-destructive society. It's crazy.

You being serious here LOL? Do you make a habbit of labeling traits you frown uppon as degraded illness so you can justify sweeping it under the rug lol? Going ubermench on us much herr rosenberg heh?

Jawohl, mein Führer.
*salutes*
Eugenics, one's got to love it. I'm not going to defend a working system, really. It's obvious that it works, and that it's true..

And there very much is a point in allowing it, or better said ammending the diction of certain regulation so that they are provided the same opportunities under law as everybody else has.

And I suppose you're going to tell me that is where the whole "equality"-"rights"-crap is going on about?

"Stimulating healthy youngsters to seek out and explore the perverted side of the human psyche"? Excuese me? I thought you classified it as a chemical imbalance at birth? Where is this fear of "coodies rubbing off on me/my vhild" coming from all of the sudden heh?

One is more prone to .. -what is the word?- .. degenerating influences, as the other. Chemical imbalance makes one seek out this perversion 'naturally' (whilst actually being a psychological affliction) whereas regular contact with the affected creates an atmosphere of: "Become like us! Rebel against nature!" Given the tendency to rebel in youngsters, ánd their mental vulnerabilities, it is irresponsible to allow your child to be in contact with them. It is also irresponsible to keep your child unaware, but such information should be transferred responsibly and with the clear impression on the young mind that the behaviour is that of a psychologically afflicted person.

But yea, seriously, whats next... unzipping collars... nudist beaches... a society in wich one is judged as an induvidual regardless of weather or not he takes it up the shaft in the privacy of his own home... God forbid. We must preserve the sanctity of our marriage (thats failing in roughly 50% of the cases) and the harmonic fabric of our (blood crazed and insensitive to suffering and discrimination) society. God forbid heh. Clearly affording same sex couples some of the rights normal ones enjoy would shove us over the moral abbys (into the fires of hell).

What was that? You think my point of view is based on religion?! You're so amusing..

[Cole]

Having a person disabled by polio since her a childhood in my family (she's not from "young" generation..)...I do not share such vision about disabled people, to say the least..

About homosexuality, I don't think that's accurate.
If you tell to a youngster that it's bad, and not manage to convince the person, that person will do it..so saying that it is bad isn't the solution. Just explain what it is, and hide your criticism into your describing, but don't make it too obvious criticism describing, to not make the young one to feel it's another forbidden to break.

[Juliette]

Having a person disabled by polio since her a childhood in my family (she's not from "young" generation..)...I do not share such vision about disabled people, to say the least..

Who is talking about disabled people?

[Cole]

Having a person disabled by polio since her a childhood in my family (she's not from "young" generation..)...I do not share such vision about disabled people, to say the least..

Who is talking about disabled people?

Eugenics are meant to solve such problems and modify human genes (play like GOD on it), so I thought it was going on that..
And you mentioned deaf people in beginning...

[Duderanch]

I didnt realises some people where still so emotionally retarded. Why should someone be dissallowed a basic human right such as the right to marry who they wish just because they play for the other team?

I'm not gay but jeez, thats crazy. And whoever says its 'against God' well just LOL

"OH noes a fictional being someone made up thousands of years ago doesnt approve, you will burn in hell"

[Juliette]

Having a person disabled by polio since her a childhood in my family (she's not from "young" generation..)...I do not share such vision about disabled people, to say the least..

Who is talking about disabled people?

Eugenics are meant to solve such problems and modify human genes (play like GOD on it), so I thought it was going on that..
And you mentioned deaf people in beginning...

*sigh* Right. okay, so now that that is cleared up, can I remove this pointless interjection from the debate?




Duderanch: "human rights"? You one of those amusing HRW people?