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.