ZFGC
General => Other Discussion => Boards => Archive => Debates => Topic started by: Aliento on October 16, 2008, 04:59:46 am
-
I've never been one to get political, especially here on ZFGC, but I think this is too important to stay quiet about...
Prop 8 is a proposition in California that would amend the constitution to overturn the recent rulings that allow for marriages between two men or two women.
If you're living in California, you've likely heard about prop 8. You've seen the nasty ads the "Yes" campaign is throwing on the airwaves. They're out-spending the "no" campaign 2-to-1.
If you vote yes, you'll be supporting a discriminatory and segregationist agenda, and the invasion of government into people's private lives.
Not to mention, if this prop passes, it could set gay marriage back by at LEAST 5 years. California is a very important state, it creates a lead that other states follow.
So please. If you plan on voting, vote NO on prop 8. I'll love you forever. <3
I'm gonna encourage intellegent discussion here. If you plan on voting Yes on prop 8 (or you would if you lived here), please share your reasons why (be civil and MATURE please).
-
vote NO on prop 8.
Do it!
-
I do not live in California, I live in Illinois. I mention this as it will give you the location of where I am in the case that you want to kill me for what I am going to say next.
I do believe that having something that would ban the marriages of gay people would in fact be defining marriage as simply between a man and a woman; a contra-definition which would be serving of an agenda. What all of this comes down to is: what is marriage? Why should government give incentive to marriages at all? From a societal standpoint of decades past, it somewhat kept relationships monogamous. In more recent times, marriage has become an empty shell of what it once was. Things like alimony, child support, etc. are bad residue.
The best thing to be done would be to give benefits to monogamous couples if that would help them out by relieving the costs of things in their lives From a government standpoint, marriage is only a classification for this, and essentially as long as a civil union and a marriage had the same benefits, then essentially nomenclature doesn't matter. Marriage over history though has had many odd things; in some countries multiple parter marriages, marrying young children off, etc. Marriage as an institution is only classification.
Thus I feel that marriage between gay people should be fine and allowed to exist, but people on all sides should quit griping over its name. Those against gay marriage think that they are being infringed upon and they are playing ignorant over divorce rates amongst themselves as well as other problems with their way of life. Gay people need to quit shoving it down others throats as "gay marriage", but just "marriage between those of the same gender"; I know it is the same, but "gay marriage" just seems different than "marriage" in name and legally the latter although equivalent is subconsciously more effective from a legal standpoint.
Aliento, some of what you say just seems hyperbolistic in how you feel as if these people are going to storm into your life like fascists. This gives a bad name to fascists who happen to be smarter. Nobody really thinks California is a lead though, sure it's big, but really, my state does not hinge on your state's actions. Meh. Just look, I get it that you want to be treated equally, as everyone should, but it is hard to treat gay people like everyone else just because they are different. If two gay men in the future wanted to have a baby of their own and there was some way to create an egg cell out of one of the men, should that child be born? I do not think it should as that would just be going against physical lines to get to a point of likeness (being like a man and woman) when men and woman were never physically equal.
Gah, but I would vote no.
-
4sword, Shefali, I love you both forever <3
Thus I feel that marriage between gay people should be fine and allowed to exist, but people on all sides should quit griping over its name. Those against gay marriage think that they are being infringed upon and they are playing ignorant over divorce rates amongst themselves as well as other problems with their way of life.
I think the name is important. You could have a "White people fountain" and a "Colored people fountain" that were actually equal (not that they actually were, back in the day), but there's no legitimate reason to keep them separate.
What if black people had settled for "Ok, we'll have seperate water fountains and bus seats, but only if they REALLY ARE equal in quality"? You can't compromise on these issues. Having gay marriage (I refer to it as that and not your longer name for it because it's simply faster to type) can help pave the way for other gay rights, such as protection from hate crimes and descrimination in employment.
Aliento, some of what you say just seems hyperbolistic in how you feel as if these people are going to storm into your life like fascists.
Oh, I dont really, I'm just a shameless sensationalist. I CAN'T HELP IT I'M A BAD BOY.
Thank you much for your well-written and thoughtful reply 4sword <3
-
I understand that white fountain and black fountain example you brought up and where you are going with it; essentially you are trying to say that a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage or civil union if clarified by the law as two separate entities with the same rights would run the risk of leading to being unequal later in application. What I am saying is that the term "marriage" is antiquated and the concept of marriage from a government's standpoint should be between couples irregardless of gender. In short, for the sake of convenience, marriage for either homosexuals or heterosexuals should be regarded as just "marriage" as the pettiness of nomenclature prevents any real change in its nomenclature.
I had a sentence in my last post that stated if they were equal they should be fine, but my intent in that sentence was lost over revision or adding of other words. Essentially I was trying to get at if I was in a civil union with a female or if I was gay and in a gay marriage with a man, that I should get the same treatment; they're the same in essence. Government should only really care over the best way to preserve the rights of all; although all governments have restrictions - I could not marry the sky. The fountains example was extreme in the sense that there were penalties for a black to drink out of the white fountain; having a gay marriage is not something that could be legally or open socially penalized without repercussion.
Also, the acceptance of gay marriage is not halting change on other gay issues. It might help, but it isn't stopping.
-
I'll be sure to vote Yes, then. Just because you decided to be one-sided about this, rather than showing every side of the argument.
-
I'll be sure to vote Yes, then. Just because you decided to be one-sided about this, rather than showing every side of the argument.
What other side of the argument?
Voting no is religiously conservative and harms society.
Voting yes only harms the sensibilities of those who need to be more socially liberal and accepting anyway.
It's that simple!
-
Voting no is religiously conservative and harms society.
How is being 'religiously conservative' that bad of a thing?
Instead of pride parades, we'd see a gay riot.
XD
-
Voting no is religiously conservative and harms society.
How is being 'religiously conservative' that bad of a thing?
Instead of pride parades, we'd see a gay riot.
XD
You're kidding, right?
Seperation of church and state, no, none of that?
Okay, let me put it this way: You grew up in a nation with strict islamic law, would you be cool with that? Wouldn't you want your nation to provide you with more freedoms to live your life as you choose, so long as you don't forcibly involve anyone who does not consent?
Exactly the same deal, really.
-
Seperation of church and state
...Oh, crap. Forgot that we were talking politics :P. *face palm* Yes, we shouldn't mix religion and politics.
I meant it like, people who are against homosexuality and are 'religiously conservative'.
It's not the government's business, really. Who cares if gays want to marry.
This is a serious topic. If you're not going to contribute maturely and intelligently, please make your own topic and dont post in this one.
Yeah, I agree man. You should learn to be serious when you have to, Swiftu :P. <3
-
As am I. Until the gay community gets their head out of their asses, even if its only a select few doing this, I'm not going out of my way to support them. If I were in California I probably wouldn't vote on Prop 8. A gay protest group called Soulforce is coming to my uni to "combat bigotry at its source--Christianity." How pompous, arrogant, and flat out stupid can you get? They're going around places they know they'll get a reaction so they can cry about it to national media, WITHOUT PERMISSION TO BE THERE, so they can promote gay rights by twisting the truth. Sure, I'd support their group, provided they didn't do it underhandedly like that. As such, it reflects negatively on gays in general, and I refuse to support (or go against) anything that will help out the gay community at this point. G'day.
-
I'll support gay marriages when they stop getting !@#$% stupid pointless parades and stop flaunting everywhere that they are gay and enjoy being gay.
You're gay, who cares, big whoop.
-
You also get Christians who are going out to combat things like 'child birth' at the source, the testicles, and you get heterosexual female models who flaunt their sexuality everywhere like we actually give a crap about how many dicks they have sucked. You get idiots on all sides of the fence, it's best to just ignore them until the time comes when we can dub me leader of the universe and the mass-exterminations can begin.
Bolded the serious part for extra emphasis. Seriously, ignore the idiots, listen to the smart people, if you won't do that do the human race a favour by removing yourself from not only the gene pool, but existence as a whole.
-
You also get Christians who are going out to combat things like 'child birth' at the source, the testicles, and you get heterosexual female models who flaunt their sexuality everywhere like we actually give a crap about how many dicks they have sucked. You get idiots on all sides of the fence, it's best to just ignore them until the time comes when we can dub me leader of the universe and the mass-exterminations can begin.
Bolded the serious part for extra emphasis. Seriously, ignore the idiots, listen to the smart people, if you won't do that do the human race a favour by removing yourself from not only the gene pool, but existence as a whole.
!@#$%...We're in head on competition to rule the world. *Sigh*
-
You also get Christians who are going out to combat things like 'child birth' at the source, the testicles, and you get heterosexual female models who flaunt their sexuality everywhere like we actually give a crap about how many dicks they have sucked. You get idiots on all sides of the fence, it's best to just ignore them until the time comes when we can dub me leader of the universe and the mass-exterminations can begin.
Bolded the serious part for extra emphasis. Seriously, ignore the idiots, listen to the smart people, if you won't do that do the human race a favour by removing yourself from not only the gene pool, but existence as a whole.
Newsflash: I understand this. HOWEVER I'm paying $24,000 a year to get an education only to have a bunch of flaming homosexuals from California parade into classes protesting religion. They are infringing on my rights, and they are reflecting badly upon the people they're trying to support. Therefore, I have every reason to say that I'm not going to support gays, because it's not my job to support your rights when I don't feel that strongly about them. Yes, there are idiot Christians who do stupid stuff, and if you choose apathy towards Christianity, its pretty much the same principle. Fortunately, nobody here's stupid enough to take offense to apathy, right?
-
You see, this is why my college has a big fence around it, keeps out wild flocks of parading homosexuals and stampeding Jehova's Witnesses.
I tried to get the headmaster to get them electrified so I could lure year seven's into trying to climb over them, but apparently that counts as murder in this craaazy world.
-
Where's my straight pride parade?
-
Where's my straight pride parade?
When you experience prejudice in all elements of life for your personal preferences that have nothing to do with those being prejudiced against you, THEN you get a pride parade.
Or as Bert said, stop being a lazy DICK and organise your own. Jesus.
-
I would vote no if I could.
In my experiences, gays have done nothing wrong to me (I live in England where gays are cool), and if they want marriage then I dont see why not.
-
Where's my straight pride parade?
When you experience prejudice in all elements of life for your personal preferences that have nothing to do with those being prejudiced against you, THEN you get a pride parade.
Quoted for Truth. Straight pride parades make no real sense. How often are you persecuted for being straight Pyro?
Homosexual pornstars are paid more than heterosexual pornstars, I demand equal pay for equal work.
One could argue that since gay sex and straight sex involve different things, they are not actually equal work. I dunno.
This topic has lost my interest though in that it has devolved into rants of stupidity with no point or wisdom in offering.
Agreed.
Can you people not read? I explicitly stated on two occasions I only want mature, intelligent replies in this topic. And even the moderators are incapable of acting like adults. This is sad. No wonder this forum is dying. There are plenty of other topics for you to go act like asses in.
-
Quoted for Truth. Straight pride parades make no real sense. How often are you persecuted for being straight Pyro?
Gay pride parades make no sense. Why do you guys need to celebrate being gay? WHY? This is exactly why gays are hated so much generally. They don't need all this parade !@#$%. They don't need to protest. Just be gay and get on with your day, ignore everyone else.
Can you people not read? I explicitly stated on two occasions I only want mature, intelligent replies in this topic. And even the moderators are incapable of acting like adults. This is sad. No wonder this forum is dying. There are plenty of other topics for you to go act like asses in.
Oh right. Nobody can talk bad about gays or else they aren't acting like adults and are very immature.
Also I don't get this OMG MODERATOR IS IMMATURE !@#$% seriously, we're normal members too, expect we moderate the forums. Oh right, cause we are moderators we have to act like emotionless robots.
-
Quoted for Truth. Straight pride parades make no real sense. How often are you persecuted for being straight Pyro?
Gay pride parades make no sense. Why do you guys need to celebrate being gay? WHY? This is exactly why gays are hated so much generally. They don't need all this parade !@#$%. They don't need to protest. Just be gay and get on with your day, ignore everyone else.
The Gay Pride Parade is to celebrate the removal of the laws preventing homosexuality. THATS WHY IT EXISTS.
Can you people not read? I explicitly stated on two occasions I only want mature, intelligent replies in this topic. And even the moderators are incapable of acting like adults. This is sad. No wonder this forum is dying. There are plenty of other topics for you to go act like asses in.
Oh right. Nobody can talk bad about gays or else they aren't acting like adults and are very immature.
Also I don't get this OMG MODERATOR IS IMMATURE !@#$% seriously, we're normal members too, expect we moderate the forums. Oh right, cause we are moderators we have to act like emotionless robots.
There have been immature comments in this topic, and furthermore we're moderators we're supposed to set an example to the members. A GOOD example.
-
FFS people, you could have given me an easier job of cleaning this topic up.
Anyway Aliento, I've removed most of the posts I think are off-topic. Don't have time to individually remove quotes from all current posts though, sorry.
I've also moved to debates, since thats what this is bound to turn into.
-
TDJ, I cleaned up this topic for a reason. Continue that discussion and you will get punished.
EDIT: Infact, removed your post.
-
Ok, this sounds good. I thank you sincerely Infini. Anyone who thinks poorly of you is very deeply mistaken <3.
OK, Back on topic, people!
So yes, is there anyone who would NOT vote "No" on prop 8, if given the chance? Why or why not? As I said, serious, mature responses only please.
-
Sorry, I actually posted that before I read your post, I was about to edit it out with another message when I got distracted by my parents coming home and Half-Life 2 finishing installing...sorry :P
Anyway, yeah I'd vote "no" on it myself (if I could), marriage is a legal contract, gender/sexuality differences shouldn't exist. I don't care about 'church marriages', that'd be down to the religion in question, and views of the vicar or whatever they are called nowadays in this craaazy world.
And on something you, Aliento, mentioned about Homosexual porn involving different things, I wonder what women who have anal sex in porn are paid? Of course it's not strictly the same really, but could still shown a clear price difference...hmm...
I must now find some porn...for...uhh...science, yes for science.
-
Voting yes deal with it.
-
Voting yes deal with it.
...why?
-
Voting yes deal with it.
...why?
Just feel like it.
-
Just feel like it.
Haven't you said before that you are bi? How can you vote AGAINST gay marriage?
Let it be known that I respect anyone's choice to vote "yes" if they so choose, I simply want to know WHY.
-
Just feel like it.
Haven't you said before that you are bi? How can you vote AGAINST gay marriage?
Let it be known that I respect anyone's choice to vote "yes" if they so choose, I simply want to know WHY.
Im bi correct, simply because I have homosexual tendencies does not mean I think or feel a certain way. I came upon asking this question of prop 8 to two of my gay friends, they both believe that marriage (as I do) is religious and should remain religious between a man and a women. This is simply my belief i'm not against gays in the slightest I just don't think that we/they should be married.
tl;dr gay/bi != same belief
-
Technically, marriage IS strictly between a man and a woman. No man can marry a man and no woman can marry a woman.
It's called civil partnership, so technically they're not getting married, so technically it's not against religion.
mirite?
-
Ur rite thats why i'm voting. The law isn't to ban gays from partnering its to ban them from the act of marriage :3
-
Well if you wont vote no, why dont you just....NOT vote on it? Please? I'll love you forever and ever!
-
The problem is marriage is a legal contract, that carries certain benefits to the recipitants; if there were no legal issues regarding it (removal ALL legal protection and benefits for those in marriage), then who gives a !@#$%?
Seriously, male/male and female/female commited partnerships analogous to those in marriages do not get the same legal protection as those who are actually married, and there's seriously unfair.
-
Well if you wont vote no, why dont you just....NOT vote on it? Please? I'll love you forever and ever!
My vote is swung pretty fuckin easily. Not voting now :D
-
Aliento, if only I was 18...
(I'm 15 turning 16 soon :P)
-
Technically, marriage IS strictly between a man and a woman. No man can marry a man and no woman can marry a woman.
It's called civil partnership, so technically they're not getting married, so technically it's not against religion.
mirite?
Depends what you view as marriage, and even then like Pyru said, they still don't have exactly the same benefits.
Besides, Religious Marriage and Legal Marriage are completely separate things nowadays. They may have started the same, but that's irrelevant in the modern world: They became separate entities when church and state became separate entities.
For the former, I say it's up to the religions beliefs and beliefs of the vicars/ministers/whatever involved.
For the latter, it's a contact, nothing more. It's there to protect those who marry because it traditionally involved leaving one career "for the family", and as much as some try to deny it, on average one of the partners in a marriage relies on the other to earn the most money, and without this income could not live the life they lead.
This means some legal protection is required, in the event the person they gave up their career for dies, they need protecting. Now, this protection should not extend to people based on whether it's a man and a man or a man and a women or a women and a women, it should extend to all such couples or none at all, anything else cannot be justified. This doesn't subtract from the meaning of marriage, nor the wonder, it simply makes society as a whole better.
-
People that are against gay marriage really sadden me. You can try to point the blame away from religion, but, seriously, what other reason is there for an otherwise sane politician to attempt to suppress a large group of people for their sexual orientation, other than outright homophobia?
You claim you want to punish all homosexual people for the protests of some (which they deserve to hold). Isn't that the exact same thing as blaming Christianity for anti gay marriage laws? You're not trying hard enough.
It doesn't matter what marriage is. I agree: it's a stupid, self-restricting tradition which will probably only hurt you in the end. However, these people want it. Not only that, but there's absolutely no reason for them to be denied it.
-
^ If that's directed at me, I said if I were in California I probably wouldn't vote based on my perceptions of the gay community. Show me some more of gays educating people on their beliefs instead of throwing bitchfits they can't get married, show me more of gays feeding the hungry, helping the weak, and then I'll put the idiots aside and swing pro-gay marriage.
-
I donate canned goods to the homeless quite often, believe it or not. And I'm not quite sure what you mean by "helping the weak"...but it sounds like something I would do!
And gay people are just as nice, compassionate, and generous as, if not more than, everyone else, I can assure you. There's no question, in my opinion, that gay people are just as good of people as the rest of humanity.
-
Though if you look at any photo with a group of people from a charity, going of base statistics 1 in 10 of those people are gay. Obviously it doesn't work out like that, but you see my point.
To make a charity called "LGBT for Stopping Poverty" would be rather pointless since just as if not more effective charities exist. Then again, a charity like that almost undoubtedly exists...that's this Craaazy world we live in. 100 charities all trying to do exactly the same things...wouldn't it be easier to combine them all into one super charity? People can get all of their pompous-self-righteousness out of the way in a huge crowd of ego-boosting-by-helping-others!
-
I'm voting yes. It's a religious issue, and every religion I can think of defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
-
I'm voting yes. It's a religious issue, and every religion I can think of defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Except it isn't, like I said:
Religious Marriage and Legal Marriage are completely separate things nowadays. They may have started the same, but that's irrelevant in the modern world: They became separate entities when church and state became separate entities.
-
I'm voting yes. It's a religious issue, and every religion I can think of defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
When it involves the law, it's not a religious issue.
If you want it to be a religious issue, then you should try to start a petition abolishing the legal institution of marriage; only then would it be constitutional for marriage to be a religious issue.
I will only accept the "it's a religious issue" argument once there are no legal issues surrounding marriage.
Oh, also, several denominations of Christianity and Buddhism accept definitions of marriage that include same-sex partnership. So there ya go.
-
Though if you look at any photo with a group of people from a charity, going of base statistics 1 in 10 of those people are gay. Obviously it doesn't work out like that, but you see my point.
To make a charity called "LGBT for Stopping Poverty" would be rather pointless since just as if not more effective charities exist. Then again, a charity like that almost undoubtedly exists...that's this Craaazy world we live in. 100 charities all trying to do exactly the same things...wouldn't it be easier to combine them all into one super charity? People can get all of their pompous-self-righteousness out of the way in a huge crowd of ego-boosting-by-helping-others!
I'm gonna guess you're about 17?
*checks age*
Damn I'm good. Funny thing is in real world instances its impossible to unify everyone under one ideal, even if its something as great as charity.
@ Aliento: Cool bro, glad to see you're helping the community. I'm not saying gays are bad by any stretch of the imagination, just that, I'd be more willing to help the community as a whole if their community as a whole would be more willing to help others. Protesting is fine and dandy, but if you want to get real people's support, you need to show them you deserve it, instead of throwing logic in their faces that will go above most of their heads.
-
I'm voting yes. It's a religious issue, and every religion I can think of defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Maybe you should form your own opinion, instead of just taking your opinion from what religion says. Religions often change their opinion over time. Slavery used to be A-OK with pastors and priests back in the day. What do you think they would say about slavery now? Do you think that 500 years from now, priests may condone some of the same things they condemn today?
Why not be ahead of the times?
-
That all-charity-under-one was supposed to be humour, light social commentary and not to be taken seriously. I'm well aware of how the real world operates and how people are all bastards who'd never work on such a unified front unless a gun was held to everyone's heads (which is why I think I should be crowned grand-ruler and lord of the universe ;)).
-
I'm voting yes. It's a religious issue, and every religion I can think of defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Maybe you should form your own opinion, instead of just taking your opinion from what religion says. Religions often change their opinion over time. Slavery used to be A-OK with pastors and priests back in the day. What do you think they would say about slavery now? Do you think that 500 years from now, priests may condone some of the same things they condemn today?
Why not be ahead of the times?
Alright, you want my opinion? Here:
I sincerely think that you should shut the !@#$% up.
There. You have my opinion.
When gays stop acting like they're different and crying for attention because of it, I'll vote to allow gay marriage. Until then, they need to learn to stop bitching and find constructive ways to get what they want.
Also, I do support gay marriage. As long as both women are hot.
-
Also, I do support gay marriage. As long as both women are hot.
I don't think anyone who forms opinions like this should be allowed to vote. It's clear that you don't want to listen to logic. Why even post here?
-
Also, I do support gay marriage. As long as both women are hot.
I don't think anyone who forms opinions like this should be allowed to vote. It's clear that you don't want to listen to logic. Why even post here?
The more things change, the more they stay the same. The fact that you're stubborn and holding to your opinion is no different from the fact that I'm holding to mine and pushing my beliefs and thoughts on the issue.
-
I'm voting yes. It's a religious issue, and every religion I can think of defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman.
Exactly what my mom said :P
-
/me raises hand
How come when someone has an issue with gay marriages someone blames it on religion?
Just vague curiosity, no real concern behind it really <_<;; I know a ton of atheists who are very against gay marriage AND religion <_<;; I think it's unfair to try to associate one another based on the support/disapproval from a large majority of one group
-
/me raises hand
How come when someone has an issue with gay marriages someone blames it on religion?
Just vague curiosity, no real concern behind it really <_<;; I know a ton of atheists who are very against gay marriage AND religion <_<;; I think it's unfair to try to associate one another based on the support/disapproval from a large majority of one group
It's because the world is full of too many people who have their opinions dictated to them through a book. Religion is by far the leading agent of homophobia.
-
/me raises hand
How come when someone has an issue with gay marriages someone blames it on religion?
Just vague curiosity, no real concern behind it really <_<;; I know a ton of atheists who are very against gay marriage AND religion <_<;; I think it's unfair to try to associate one another based on the support/disapproval from a large majority of one group
It's because the world is full of too many people who have their opinions dictated to them through a book. Religion is by far the leading agent of homophobia.
There's other ones too tho :( attack them tooooz
The Gay Pride Parade is to celebrate the removal of the laws preventing homosexuality. THATS WHY IT EXISTS.
This will sound bad, but it's counterproductive. Laws aren't put into place because a small group of people (by small I mean a couple thousand mind you; small in terms of how large a state is) decide to make themselves known or heard. They're put into place because they're passed by the majority of people, so on so forth. Parades, protests, etc don't make people want to vote for said issue... Typically it just pisses them off. There are other means of getting things done in a bureaucratic fashion that's more effective :P... You don't need to flaunt to get things done basically...
-
If I lived in California I have to say I would vote yes to prop 8. I don't think a marriage between two men or two women makes any sense. All the benefits (tax exemptions etc...) that come from being legally married are pretty much based on the fact that marriages often lead to families, raising children. Two men or two women should not be raising a child together, as it not conducive to a healthy environment for the child. There are things that a mother can teach a child and there are things that a father can teach a child and to say that two men or two women, or, for that matter could provide the kind of care and love that a child should get is bull crap.
-
I agree with Fictitious, it wouldn't be healthy for their children. They would probably have a crappy childhood, get bullied at school, etc.
Homosexual couples should think about this and decide not to adopt any children.
-
I agree with Fictitious, it wouldn't be healthy for their children. They would probably have a crappy childhood, get bullied at school, etc.
Homosexual couples should think about this and decide not to adopt any children.
That's really none of your business. Homophobic people should think about this and STFU.
Mayyybe it's the hateful bastards who should change, and not the victims.
-
What I meant by that comment is, before they adopt a child, they should think about what awaits him.
I'm seriously out of topics like this. You guys never accept people being against homosexuality and go ''BAW HOMOPHOBIC!! STFU!! <3 GAYs!!!'' each time I post a comment. It's like the third time you do this Shefali.
Oh and you're right, it's their !@#$% business, not mine. We shouldn't care about those children, since we aren't concerned. Right?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exPoH1JX0Q8
I agree with Fictitious, it wouldn't be healthy for their children. They would probably have a crappy childhood, get bullied at school, etc.
Homosexual couples should think about this and decide not to adopt any children.
I already made an argument for this, so dont mind if I copy and paste. I'm feeling a tad lazy.
Do you know this for certain? Have you yourself witnessed children being made fun of for their parents? Hell, during my childhood, nobody ever brought up my parents even once, they wouldn't have any way to know about them. Even if they did, so what? Children are assholes anyways. They'll find any reason to make fun of other kids.
In Middle school, I was tormented the entire 3 years because in my 5th grade year book, when it asked "what do you want to be when you grow up?", I wrote "A Pokemon Master!". I was miserable, and wish I never wrote that. But what if I hadn't? They probably would have found some other stupid thing to make fun of me over and things would be about as bad.
Essentially, you could say the same thing about, say, Muslims raising a child here. A lot of children would make fun of this child and make him miserable. Should Muslims not be allowed to have children in America?
There are things that a mother can teach a child and there are things that a father can teach a child and to say that two men or two women, or, for that matter could provide the kind of care and love that a child should get is bull crap.
What the hell. Are you trying to say that a gay couple would be unable to LOVE and CARE for a child? THAT is bull crap. That's the most idiotic thing I have heard in this topic. Gay people live and love and have feelings and are human, just like everyone else.
And what about Single parents? As you said, there are things only certain genders can teach, right? So naturally, we should take all children of single parents and give them to foster homes. Yeah right. A good enough parent can rise to the occasion and can teach a child just as well.
If a child is raised by two homosexual parents, kids will naturally begin to think that the child is a homosexual, an issue which may actually make a child feel homosexual, due to confusion and a lack of self-esteem and self-pride that would allow that child to otherwise rise up against the insults of his/her peers.
Yeah, that's a load of !@#$%. Naturally, they would likely teach the child positive values such as kindness to others, regardless of differences, and tolerance. There is a chance the child may indeed be homosexual, but that is not increased by having homosexual parents. Just as many homosexuals are born to nasty right-wing bible-thumpers as are to loving tolerant homes.
I'd also say that it's not unreasonable to say that parents who WANT a child would generally make for better parents than those who conceive by accident. Therefore, adoptive parents would, in general, make for better parents. Goodness knows, I wish I had same-sex parents more than the parents I have, who collectively know DICK about child-raising.
And I noticed this post in another topic:
Yahtzees reviews are irrelevant. Honestly, the guy doesn't even like games, asking him which games are fun to play is like asking Aliento which hot female model would be the best to bang.
I take an objection to that. I'm plenty good at telling how attractive a lady is. Dont tell me that because you're straight, you cannot tell the difference between a male model and a man with disfiguring scars. The only difference is that you would not find the model attractive to you, personally.
-
You guys never accept people being against homosexuality and go ''BAW HOMOPHOBIC!! STFU!! <3 GAYs!!!'' each time anyone posts a comment.
QFT x52
Do you know this for certain? Have you yourself witnessed children being made fun of for their parents? Hell, during my childhood, nobody ever brought up my parents even once, they wouldn't have any way to know about them. Even if they did, so what? Children are assholes anyways. They'll find any reason to make fun of other kids.
I have known plenty of kids that have. I've known about 4 kids with gay parents and they got made fun of all the time and 3 of those 4 kids have been traumatized ever since and hate their parents. Was it their parents fault? Maybe since their parents wanted to come into class and talk about gay marriage and such.
-
Aliento, Fictitious was talking about how lesbian parents would be inappropriate for raising a boy, as would gay parents bringing up a girl. Think about it, I'd hate for a boy to be raised to be a total sissy because his parents had no real idea of male behaviour, wouldn't you?
-
I think it's irrelevant. A single parents would face the same problems. And I would much rather be the child of two people, rather than just one, regardless of what gender they are.
-
And what about Single parents?
Single parents don't choose to be single parents.
I can guess how being a single parent is hard, though.
Oh and about the kids making fun of his parents, children are cruel, and having gay parents is like bait for even more cruelty. Yes, I have witnessed this many times. And I know what it's like when people make fun of you, hell everyone does. It's not a nice feeling, is it? Would you like your children to feel like that?
And about the muslim thing, deny it all you want but it is alot more accepted than homosexuality.
-
And what about Single parents?
Single parents don't choose to be single parents.
I can guess how being a single parent is hard, though.
Oh and about the kids making fun of his parents, children are cruel, and having gay parents is like bait for even more cruelty. Yes, I have witnessed this many times. And I know what it's like when people make fun of you, hell everyone does. It's not a nice feeling, is it? Would you like your children to feel like that?
And about the muslim thing, deny it all you want but it is alot more accepted than homosexuality.
Darunia's right. Religion has nothing to do with parenting- sexuality and lifestyle does. Face it, homosexuality is abnormal-it's not natural. I don't care what you say, it isn't. Children should be raised to be open-minded about homosexuality, but when they're being raised by gays, chances are they'll just become gay themselves because of all the gay paraphernalia they're surrounded by.
-
Honestly, As I've said before...
I'm not against gays, I don't mind gays, I've had gay friends before and still do.
The only thing I hate about gays, is the constant flaunting and whining about every little thing when things don't go their way. We don't need to see pride parades. If you're proud of your lifestyle, then good for you, you don't need to parade around streets almost completely naked to show it off. Parents don't want kids seeing that (even if they were straight).
We don't need to see constant protests about all this crap. If you're so set on getting something legalized get a petition started. Start meetings to discuss ideas on how to do it. Don't just start protests and parades to try and get your point across.
About the whole "Same-Sex parents" thing. If the child is brought up right, I don't mind. If the parents try to raise the kid gay, then I hate it. Let the kid choose their own lifestyle, don't try to shove it down their throats. I've known about so many gay couples trying to force their kids to be gay.
Even my gay friends that I mentioned feel the same. They hate the flaunting, they hate parades, they had all that stuff. Yes they're at terms with their sexuality. Yes people accept them and they're openly gay... but they don't go around whining and literally acting like !@#$% just to try and get what they want. Sure they still get made fun of by the odd jackass, but you know what they do? They stand their ground. They don't !@#$% about people making fun of them. They don't call them OMG GAY HATERS. They just tell them to !@#$% off and get on with their day.
Basically my point is, stop trying to shove your beliefs down everyone's throats and maybe you'll get what you want.
Constantly trying to get people to vote no isn't going to get you anywhere except for people ignoring and hating you.
-
Aliento, Fictitious was talking about how lesbian parents would be inappropriate for raising a boy, as would gay parents bringing up a girl. Think about it, I'd hate for a boy to be raised to be a total sissy because his parents had no real idea of male behaviour, wouldn't you?
On Wife Swap once there was a girl who lived with her dad and her dad's boyfriend. She absolutely adored her dad and didn't mind at all having 2 dads.
Just because your opinion or your experience says something, doesnt mean it applies to everybody. There is a possibility that gay couples can successfully and happily bring up a girl and that lesbian couples can successfully and happily bring up a boy.
And the gay couple in Wife Swap werent even married (yet). You shouldnt say that homosexuals shouldnt marry just because you think they shouldnt bring up children. Because not being able to marry doesnt affect whether they bring up children or not, and I think that if somebody wants to be a parent, then if they are suitable then they should be able to. Being homosexual doesnt make you unsuitable as a parent.
I know a Wife Swap reference may be a bad example but this discussion just made me think of that.
Think about it, I'd hate for a boy to be raised to be a total sissy because his parents had no real idea of male behaviour, wouldn't you?
A boy who is raised by only his mother isnt likely to be a "total sissy", so why should a boy raised by 2 mothers? It's not like he will only ever have female role models to look up to.
About the whole "Same-Sex parents" thing. If the child is brought up right, I don't mind. If the parents try to raise the kid gay, then I hate it. Let the kid choose their own lifestyle, don't try to shove it down their throats. I've known about so many gay couples trying to force their kids to be gay.
How do you know they are forcing the child to be gay? Sometimes children with homosexual role models are more likely to find themselves to be homosexual simply because they are comfortable with it and it is more normal to them than, say, someone who is brought up around people who are all straight.
-
How do you know they are forcing the child to be gay? Sometimes children with homosexual role models are more likely to find themselves to be homosexual simply because they are comfortable with it and it is more normal to them than, say, someone who is brought up around people who are all straight.
How do I know?
Well considering I've seen acts of them doing it, them saying things like "Oh don't you think that guy is cute?" and dressing the boy up in girls clothing and such and one of my friends with the gay parents actually told me they've tried many times to make him gay, I'd say I know.
It's also common sense that most likely 2 out of 10 gay couples try to raise their kids gay.
-
How do you know they are forcing the child to be gay? Sometimes children with homosexual role models are more likely to find themselves to be homosexual simply because they are comfortable with it and it is more normal to them than, say, someone who is brought up around people who are all straight.
How do I know?
Well considering I've seen acts of them doing it, them saying things like "Oh don't you think that guy is cute?" and dressing the boy up in girls clothing and such and one of my friends with the gay parents actually told me they've tried many times to make him gay, I'd say I know.
It's also common sense that most likely 2 out of 10 gay couples try to raise their kids gay.
That has nothing to do with the parents being homosexual. Its because the parents are !@#$% at parenting.
-
That has nothing to do with the parents being homosexual. Its because the parents are !@#$% at parenting.
How not? The parents are gay, they're dressing the kid up and making the kid act exactly like they are. I'd say that has to do with them being gay.
-
That has nothing to do with the parents being homosexual. Its because the parents are !@#$% at parenting.
How not? The parents are gay, they're dressing the kid up and making the kid act exactly like they are. I'd say that has to do with them being gay.
Okay, so if a kid goes and kills loads of people. Would that make the parents serial killers?
-
That has nothing to do with the parents being homosexual. Its because the parents are !@#$% at parenting.
How not? The parents are gay, they're dressing the kid up and making the kid act exactly like they are. I'd say that has to do with them being gay.
Ah, but it is to do with bad parenting. It's like strict Christians bringing up a child as strictly straight, because it's what they are and it's their religion, even when the child is gay.
-
Okay, so if a kid goes and kills loads of people. Would that make the parents serial killers?
No, because his parents didn't raise him that way unless they were actually serial killers and they did raise him to hate everyone and to kill. But in reality, that could have happened because of many things... being bullied, etc.
Ah, but it is to do with bad parenting. It's like strict Christians bringing up a child as strictly straight, because it's what they are and it's their religion, even when the child is gay.
It may be bad parenting, but it's exactly what the gay parents are doing. They're forcing their beliefs and way of life onto the kid.
-
Ah, but it is to do with bad parenting. It's like strict Christians bringing up a child as strictly straight, because it's what they are and it's their religion, even when the child is gay.
I don't agree, I think it's more 'cause they think it's what's best for them in this society.
Edit: God doesn't shove down Christianity down our throat, it's our choice to choose to follow him or not. Parents who force their children to be Christians are bad Christians themselves.
Inb4 TDJ's ''craaaazy world'' statement. Or am I too late?
-
Okay, so if a kid goes and kills loads of people. Would that make the parents serial killers?
No, because his parents didn't raise him that way unless they were actually serial killers and they did raise him to hate everyone and to kill. But in reality, that could have happened because of many things... being bullied, etc.
Homosexuality can happen for any reason what so ever. Doesn't mean parents forced it.
Ah, but it is to do with bad parenting. It's like strict Christians bringing up a child as strictly straight, because it's what they are and it's their religion, even when the child is gay.
It may be bad parenting, but it's exactly what the gay parents are doing. They're forcing their beliefs and way of life onto the kid.
You've brought up an example of it. So now all homosexual parents are like that?
In that case;
All Gamers are fat.
All WoW players will end up commiting suicide
All White People want to Kill Black People
All Germans want to Kill Jews
See a pattern forming yet?
-
Homosexuality can happen for any reason what so ever. Doesn't mean parents forced it.
You've brought up an example of it. So now all homosexual parents are like that?
Don't put words into my mouth, and learn to read. I never said that all of them are like that, I just said I'd hate it if they try to force their way of life onto their kids.
If the parents try to raise the kid gay, then I hate it. Let the kid choose their own lifestyle, don't try to shove it down their throats. I've known about so many gay couples trying to force their kids to be gay.
I just showed two examples of where it's true that some gay couples try to do that. They aren't the only examples I've seen, I've seen it happen many more times. Does it mean all gay couples do it? No. Does it mean it can happen often? Yes.
-
Homosexuality can happen for any reason what so ever. Doesn't mean parents forced it.
You've brought up an example of it. So now all homosexual parents are like that?
Don't put words into my mouth, and learn to read. I never said that all of them are like that, I just said I'd hate it if they try to force their way of life onto their kids.
It may be bad parenting, but it's exactly what the gay parents are doing. They're forcing their beliefs and way of life onto the kid.
...
-
It may be bad parenting, but it's exactly what the gay parents are doing. They're forcing their beliefs and way of life onto the kid.
...
I think he forgot to put in ''a lot'' or ''some''.
but it's exactly what the some/ a lot of gay parents are doing.
-
It may be bad parenting, but it's exactly what the gay parents are doing. They're forcing their beliefs and way of life onto the kid.
...
I don't know what you're trying to say there, but when I said "The gay parents" I meant the parents that are trying to force onto their kids, I didn't mean ALL gay parents.
But whatever, no matter what you post in any of these topics it's always "GAYS NEVER DO WRONG" "BLAH GAY HATER BLAH BLAH" "GAYS ARE PERFECT" etc. or at least that's the vibe that's constantly given.
-
It may be bad parenting, but it's exactly what the gay parents are doing. They're forcing their beliefs and way of life onto the kid.
...
I don't know what you're trying to say there, but when I said "The gay parents" I meant the parents that are trying to force onto their kids, I didn't mean ALL gay parents.
But whatever, no matter what you post in any of these topics it's always "GAYS NEVER DO WRONG" "BLAH GAY HATER BLAH BLAH" "GAYS ARE PERFECT" etc. or at least that's the vibe that's constantly given.
The way you worded it made it seem like you was talking about all gay parents. Thats all.
As for your latter, I dunno if you trying to make out that that was I was saying, or what. But I dont think anyone in this thread has made such an accusation or statement.
-
It may be bad parenting, but it's exactly what the gay parents are doing. They're forcing their beliefs and way of life onto the kid.
...
I don't know what you're trying to say there, but when I said "The gay parents" I meant the parents that are trying to force onto their kids, I didn't mean ALL gay parents.
But whatever, no matter what you post in any of these topics it's always "GAYS NEVER DO WRONG" "BLAH GAY HATER BLAH BLAH" "GAYS ARE PERFECT" etc. or at least that's the vibe that's constantly given.
It's just a sensitive topic because in the past homosexuals have always been discriminated against, and so it sometimes tends to be that people get annoyed because of people making generalisations of them. It's like with men and women, with women who used to be known as the "weaker sex" and so on, and now women are just fighting to keep their place as equals with men (and get accused of trying to 'take over'). Like homosexuals and those who are pro-homosexuality are afraid of homosexuals losing their place in society.
-
Constantly trying to get people to vote no isn't going to get you anywhere except for people ignoring and hating you.
I havn't been constantly trying to get people to vote no. that's silly. I've simply made a topic on a relatively unpopulated message board. I wouldn't call that "constantly". You simply choose to ignore the good I'm trying to do and act like I'm forcing this topic into your face. You choose to come here. I have done nothing to "annoy" you.
-
It's like with men and women, with women who used to be known as the "weaker sex" and so on, and now women are just fighting to keep their place as equals with men (and get accused of trying to 'take over').
I laughed at this XD.
...Are homosexuals trying to take over? :D I'm kidding, chill :P.
Also,
Constantly trying to get people to vote no isn't going to get you anywhere except for people ignoring and hating you.
I havn't been constantly trying to get people to vote no. that's silly. I've simply made a topic on a relatively unpopulated message board. I wouldn't call that "constantly". You simply choose to ignore the good I'm trying to do and act like I'm forcing this topic into your face. You choose to come here. I have done nothing to "annoy" you.
To all Californians...vote NO on prop 8!
I wouldn't say constantly, though.
-
Constantly trying to get people to vote no isn't going to get you anywhere except for people ignoring and hating you.
I havn't been constantly trying to get people to vote no. that's silly. I've simply made a topic on a relatively unpopulated message board. I wouldn't call that "constantly". You simply choose to ignore the good I'm trying to do and act like I'm forcing this topic into your face. You choose to come here. I have done nothing to "annoy" you.
No no, not you in general.
I'm just talking about the gay population in general who's trying to get people to vote no. Just like that video you've posted a few times that they made. (Which also doesn't help the fact that you're trying to get people to vote No by posting it all the time :P)
-
To be fair, they are just doing what all *deep beath*
Politicians, Religious Masses, Scientists, Philosophers, Every other !@#$% human trying to get you to do what they want because it suits their agendas better does, if you're going to criticise them for doing it you might as well criticise the entire democratic system which is built around exactly the same actions.
-
I miss when Possum was here...
Know why?
Because at least there was an "against" argument that was not entirely based on bigotry.
Just to show you guys how much DICK you have stuck in your ears, I'm going to replace single words to change this argument to something about black marriage.
When blacks stop acting like they're different and crying for attention because of it, I'll vote to allow black marriage. Until then, they need to learn to stop bitching and find constructive ways to get what they want.
Also, I do support black marriage. As long as both are hot.
How come when someone has an issue with black marriages someone blames it on religion?
Just vague curiosity, no real concern behind it really <_<;; I know a ton of atheists who are very against black marriage AND religion <_<;;
If I lived in California I have to say I would vote yes to prop 8. I don't think a marriage between two black people makes any sense. ... Two black people should not be raising a child together, as it not conducive to a healthy environment for the child. There are things that a white person can teach a child and there are things that a black person can teach a child and to say that two black people could provide the kind of care and love that a child should get is bull crap.
I agree with Fictitious, it wouldn't be healthy for their children. They would probably have a crappy childhood, get bullied at school, etc.
African-American couples should think about this and decide not to adopt any children.
I have known plenty of kids that have. I've known about 4 kids with black parents and they got made fun of all the time and 3 of those 4 kids have been traumatized ever since and hate their parents. Was it their parents fault? Maybe since their parents wanted to come into class and talk about black marriage and such.
Aliento, Fictitious was talking about how white parents would be inappropriate for raising a black, as would black parents bringing up a white. Think about it, I'd hate for a white to be raised to be a total gangsta because his parents had no real idea of white behaviour, wouldn't you?
Oh and about the kids making fun of his parents, children are cruel, and having black parents is like bait for even more cruelty. Yes, I have witnessed this many times. And I know what it's like when people make fun of you, hell everyone does. It's not a nice feeling, is it? Would you like your children to feel like that?
And about the muslim thing, deny it all you want but it is alot more accepted than being black.
Darunia's right. Whether or not you believe in an invisible man in the sky has nothing to do with parenting- the colour of your skin and lifestyle does. Face it, being black is abnormal-it's not natural. I don't care what you say, it isn't. Children should be raised to be open-minded about being black, but when they're being raised by blacks, chances are they'll just become black themselves because of all the black paraphernalia they're surrounded by.
I'm not against blacks, I don't mind blacks, I've had black friends before and still do.
...
About the whole "black parents" thing. If the child is brought up right, I don't mind. If the parents try to raise the kid black, then I hate it. Let the kid choose their own lifestyle, don't try to shove it down their throats. I've known about so many black couples trying to force their kids to be black.
It's also common sense that most likely 2 out of 10 black couples try to raise their kids black.
How not? The parents are black, they're dressing the kid up and making the kid act exactly like they are. I'd say that has to do with them being black.
It may be bad parenting, but it's exactly what the black parents are doing. They're forcing their beliefs and way of life onto the kid.
(I'd like to point out that ALL parents do this)
I don't know what you're trying to say there, but when I said "The black parents" I meant the parents that are trying to force onto their kids, I didn't mean ALL black parents.
But whatever, no matter what you post in any of these topics it's always "BLACKS NEVER DO WRONG" "BLAH BLACK HATER BLAH BLAH" "BLACKS ARE PERFECT" etc. or at least that's the vibe that's constantly given.
Now I'd like you to take a moment, should your DICK holes, and try to come up with an argument that doesn't rely just on your huge collective homophobia.
-
On Wife Swap once there was a girl who lived with her dad and her dad's boyfriend. She absolutely adored her dad and didn't mind at all having 2 dads.
You're basing reality off of reality television, which is actually scripted television? Wow.
with women who used to be known as the "weaker sex" and so on, and now women are just fighting to keep their place as equals with men (and get accused of trying to 'take over').
In almost every society women are considered the stronger sex, prior to modern day. It's not at all unreasonable to assume by historical precedent that women like to control society and wish they could. Also with most of the women I know...
-
Aliento, Fictitious was talking about how white parents would be inappropriate for raising a black, as would black parents bringing up a white. Think about it, I'd hate for a white to be raised to be a total gangsta because his parents had no real idea of white behaviour, wouldn't you?
Pyru, you win. You completely, utterly, win. <3
-
@ Pyru
Being racist and 'homophobic', as you put it, is NOT the same thing. At all.
White parents have nothing black parents don't. Guy + Guy doesn't have the woman. Woman + Woman doesn't have the man. Afro-american couples are capable of raising their children the same way white couples can, unlike homosexuals.
-
@ Pyru
Being racist and 'homophobic', as you put it, is NOT the same thing. At all.
White parents have nothing black parents don't. Guy + Guy doesn't have the woman. Woman + Woman doesn't have the man. Afro-american couples are capable of raising their children the same way white couples can, unlike homosexuals.
OH really? statistics would argue otherwise. Stats show that black children recieve poorer education and are generally less affluent. Maybe we should forbid blacks to breed.
-
I don't remember there being a law that says black people aren't allowed to get married.
I don't remember Black people protesting and crying about not being able to get married. (Perhaps way back when.)
I don't remember there being Black Pride parades. (Sure there's a Black History Month, but that's totally different).
I don't know why you're comparing Blacks to Gays... are you trying to say something?
Black people went through a totally different experience. Compared to what Black people went through, this !@#$% with Gay people is nothing.
-
Different pairs of people will raise their children differently, but as long as what is not radically different is maintained, the children raised will not be worse off. A black man is a man, a black woman is a woman. Do I think that some black people raise their kids possibly worse than some white parents? Yes, but the same can be said in the opposite.
Fundamentally, children raised with a male parent and a female parent are better off. That is just how it is as they are exposed to both sides. However, single parents are allowed to keep their children, and parents are not always obligated to be there for their children. Essentially, I see gay parents as two single parents; they don't have it all, but they do their best. In the case of adoption, as long as the adoption in and of itself is not to feel more normal to they eyes of society in some way or for the gay people to feel like they should just because others have that and for that reason alone, then it is alright.
-
OH really? statistics would argue otherwise. Stats show that black children recieve poorer education and are generally less affluent. Maybe we should forbid blacks to breed.
You clearly didn't get my point.
Homosexual couples aren't capable of giving the same education to their children a normal couple would. It's not possible.
Afro-american couples are capable of doing it. Sure, maybe the majority of them are poorer, but money doesn't buy everything.
-
My argument about the single parent kind of deflates what you are saying unless you think a child is corruptible based on what their parents are in terms of sexual-orientation. You fail to realize that homosexual people originated mostly in heterosexual households for some reason or other. Children who grow up in single parent households may hold some disdain for the gender of their missing parent, but they come out fine. If in a homosexual residence, a child who is missing the other gender is probably going to be alright as well. If you parents choose your sexual orientation, then you are the one who is messed up.
-
OH really? statistics would argue otherwise. Stats show that black children recieve poorer education and are generally less affluent. Maybe we should forbid blacks to breed.
You clearly didn't get my point.
Homosexual couples aren't capable of giving the same education to their children a normal couple would. It's not possible.
Afro-american couples are capable of doing it. Sure, maybe the majority of them are poorer, but money doesn't buy everything.
except it does buy an education, which is by far one of the most valuable things parents can give you.
Even if gay parents really made it so other kids would make fun of me, I'd much rather be made fun of through my school years than be poor and uneducated by the end of them.
Not to mention, if straight parents taught their children better tolerance and kindness, being made fun of would be a non-issue for children of gays. Racism is not a common problem among school children. Why should homophobia be?
-
Being racist and 'homophobic', as you put it, is NOT the same thing. At all.
Yes it is. Its showing intolerance.
-
except it does buy an education, which is by far one of the most valuable things parents can give you.
Oh hell no. They teach you lots of stuff, about life in general. School isn't there to teach stuff parents should.
Yes it is. Its showing intolerance.
No, I tolerate homosexual couples. As I've said many times, I don't give a rat's ass if there are gay couples. We're talking about what's best for their children here, not about our preferences.
-
Because at least there was an "against" argument that was not entirely based on bigotry.
AND HEEEEEEEEEEERE COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMES THE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE TRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIN
I'm going to replace single words to change this argument to something about black marriage.
Complete with logical fallacy!
When blacks stop acting like they're different and crying for attention because of it
First point of interest. Homosexuality is a relatively recent phenomena in pop culture. People have always been gay, but have never come out of the closet with it, so to speak. Once gays started coming out, it caused a shockwave to society, which, like anything else, has caused backlash. Remember the olden days when there was bloodshed over whether or not 0 should be considered part of the canonical number system? Anything that goes against the norm and shakes things up is going to cause fighting. In the civil rights movement, it was black people's rights to freedom. People were lynched in the streets for the color of their skin, something they were born with and couldn't help. For the most part, they were quiet. Most of the fighting about civil rights for blacks was actually from white people using them for political leverage. The northern states saw it in the civil war era as a perfect opportunity to slam the southern states and gain economic control. The southern states were fairly dependant on their slave labor to keep the economy up. True, most families in the south didn't have slaves because slaves were expensive. However, large plantation owners who owned most of the wealth controlled the power of the dollar and needed the cheaper labor to stay in business. Know what that reminds me of more than gays? Illegal immigrants. Why aren't we fighting for their rights? They're good, industrious, hard-working people who benefit the economy and deserve at least minimum wage to support their families. Off of that tangent, we return to the civil rights era. At this point, nobody was fighting for blacks, and protests were far and few between. Northern states once again felt more for their African-American brethren than southern states, because at that point in history it had become ingrained that blacks were inferior. Martin Luther King Jr. was one influential man who was a part of that group, and knew how to fight for peace and rights. He was like a passive voice of reason in a raging Metallica concert of bigotry.
Now we have gay people fighting to change religious code of conduct and for tax benefits. They are not fighting for freedom. They are not fighting for life. They are not fighting for liberty. They are not fighting for the pursuit of happiness. They are fighting for the almighty dollar. Idealist gays will tell you they're fighting for love, but why should the government define love for anyone? The government tends to screw things up more often than it helps. I am absolutely 100% against gay couples being married. It's a religious ceremony and allowing it to happen is completely sacrilegious. HOWEVER that's not to say that gays cannot still have civil unions, which would be the same thing, tax benefits and all, just without the religious stigma attached. Equality? Is it equal to stomp my religion into the ground? Why should the term marriage be so important? God does not approve of homosexuality. It's spelled out clear as day. God also says to hate the sin and love the sinner. We should do everything in our power to help our homosexual brethren and get them equal rights that everyone else gets, which in this case is just a tax break. However, at the same time, homosexuals should agree to turn down the dramatics a few notches and take it to legislators. As long as you can not get yourself into a tizzy over the fact that not everybody is going to support gays, and can hold yourself up high with confidence, and can really make a difference in society, then people will respect you, and people will act accordingly for you.
How come when someone has an issue with black marriages someone blames it on religion?
That's not even a valid point, the bible says nothing at all about race aside from gentile/samaritan/jews. In the old testament jews were only to marry jews, but the Samaritans came to be because of interbreeding with the local nation, of which I cannot recall.
If I lived in California I have to say I would vote yes to prop 8. I don't think a marriage between two black people makes any sense.
Your fatal flaw in this comparison is comparing race to sexuality. Race is melanin in your skin, sexuality is psychological differences in the brain. We've brought up the raising a kid argument before. No matter what you try to say, there will be negative psychological affects to any child raised by a homosexual couple, if nothing else because society deems it wrong. So the couple is gay but completely straight-edge otherwise. Normal, happy couple, perfectly capable of raising a child as well as any straight couple. Where does the problem lie? Children. Eventually your kids will have to face up with society, and if schoolkids find out you have gay parents, no matter who you are, you're going to be teased to hell and back again until you're almost done with highschool. Want to know what causes school shootings? Bullying. Gays wanna homeschool their kids to prevent that? Go for it, just be aware that you're costing your kid social skills that will be critical later in life in the workplace, and perhaps even sheltering the kid so he becomes a party animal and gets in trouble during his college years. The point is, no matter how you go about it, society's gonna kill that kid until society's ready to let it live.
I'm not against blacks, I don't mind blacks, I've had black friends before and still do.
Perfectly valid statement no matter what the context, you're reaching far.
Face it, being black is abnormal-it's not natural.
See two statements above. Society has a set of rules you have to follow if you wish to stay within its boundaries. And in this day and age, defying society is asking for your right to life to be revoked.
In short, try harder. Every argument has two sides. Anyone foolish enough to not realize this has no right arguing in the first place.
-
Yes it is. Its showing intolerance.
No, I tolerate homosexual couples. As I've said many times, I don't give a rat's ass if there are gay couples. We're talking about what's best for their children here, not about our preferences.
I'm not aiming that at you personally. The way I see it if you're homophobic, sexist, racist, blah blah blah you're intolerant. But that doesn't mean you cant hate them. I mean I hate religion with a passion, but I can tolerate that thats their belief.
As you said you can tolerate homosexuality.
-
Yes, I can tolerate homosexuality. What I don't like is what they do (Gay pride parades, shoving it down our throats, adopting children can be argued, but I still think it shouldn't be done. In my opinion).
I'm getting a headache here. >_< Too much internetz :P.
-
shoving it down our throats.
;)
Anyways yeah, I cba with this debate anymore.
-
Why did you quote me? :P
-
Why did you quote me? :P
Boredom mostly XD
-
Walnut, I do not even know where to begin with your last post. Suffice to say that you are indeed very wrong about a great many things. I will complete this post with an actual rebuttal in a little while.
-
You people would be better off if you paid attention to my arguments a little more rather than bend towards slippery slope argument fallacies. If there were a high number of children raised by gay parents, societies norms would change to reflect that, and mostly the youth of today are much more tolerant of those in a society than of generations past.
-
Walnut, I do not even know where to begin with your last post. Suffice to say that you are indeed very wrong about a great many things. I will complete this post with an actual rebuttal in a little while.
I look forward to it. Sincerely.
-
4Sword, this may be off topic but, even if your posts are full of good content, they are sometimes way too long and I'm discouraged to read through them :P.
-
No offense, but this is a Debate section, not a long topic of one or two lined opinions with no basis behind those opinions.
I brought up a good point about single parents raising children and how the child then lacks a male or female parent.
I also claimed that the sexual orientation of the child is not dependent on the parents as a lot of gay children originated in heterosexual households.
I also claimed that society is more tolerant than it was in years past.
Why the hell am I wrong?
-
Just gonna pop in here and sort of concur with what 4sword has said:
I have no problem with gay marriage. However, I do have a problem with gay marriage as an issue. I feel it distracts people, because of its strong heartstring-tugging power, from issues that truly matter more for the greater good.
I feel that sociological objections to gay marriage are not really conclusive. There are numerous studies that show that it matters or does not matter who you are raised by. Case in point: me. I was raised by a single mother, with no strong male influence. When I was young, I had trouble fitting in with other boys sometimes...but now, as a confident, heterosexual young man, I can blend in with just about anyone.
Now, this is not the same as being raised by two gay males, but I feel the LACK of a heterosexual male influence is at least in a similar echelon of situations.
4Sword, this may be off topic but, even if your posts are full of good content, they are sometimes way too long and I'm discouraged to read through them :P.
Try saying that to Walnut. His other post was !@#$% huge. At least what 4Sword says is well thought out and actually makes him sound intelligent. I cant even be arsed to even scan Walnut's post because it will just be a load of arsey !@#$%.
Actually no, it was pretty rational and well thought out.
-
No offense, but this is a Debate section, not a long topic of one or two lined opinions with no basis behind those opinions.
I brought up a good point about single parents raising children and how the child then lacks a male or female parent.
I also claimed that the sexual orientation of the child is not dependent on the parents as a lot of gay children originated in heterosexual households.
I also claimed that society is more tolerant than it was in years past.
Why the hell am I wrong?
See here we are trying to have this debate and then someone comes along and injects logic into. *sigh* 4Sword, you cant just go around putting logic into topics on ZFGC.
In all seriousness though, you make an untold amount of valid points, specifically when you say societies become more tolerant.
-
Ok, I lied, I'm just going to make a new post for this rebuttal.
Because at least there was an "against" argument that was not entirely based on bigotry.
AND HEEEEEEEEEEERE COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMES THE HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATE TRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIN
To be honest, I'm not completely sure who to side with here. On one hand, a lot of these arguments do seem at least somewhat based in homophobia. On the other hand, maybe Pyru is a little quick to call bigotry. Note that I have not been calling many opposing opinions bigoted or homophobic, most of that was other people.
When blacks stop acting like they're different and crying for attention because of it
Know what that reminds me of more than gays? Illegal immigrants. Why aren't we fighting for their rights? They're good, industrious, hard-working people who benefit the economy and deserve at least minimum wage to support their families.
It's not about what relates most to blacks, it's about what relates most to gays. As far as I can imagine, the struggle blacks went through is the most similar thing to what gays are going through still today. But this is a relatively minor point.
Now we have gay people fighting to change religious code of conduct and for tax benefits. They are not fighting for freedom. They are not fighting for life. They are not fighting for liberty. They are not fighting for the pursuit of happiness. They are fighting for the almighty dollar.
What if suddenly the government, for whatever reason, took away the tax benefits from all marriages? Straight married couples would be up in arms over this too. Wanting tax benefits doesn't make you greedy. Civil unions have most if not all of the same benefits as marriage. Sure, all those straight married couples could get CUs instead, but they wouldn't.
More later. Playing Fable 2 is more fun than debating >_>
-
4Sword, this may be off topic but, even if your posts are full of good content, they are sometimes way too long and I'm discouraged to read through them :P.
Try saying that to Walnut. His other post was !@#$% huge. At least what 4Sword says is well thought out and actually makes him sound intelligent. I cant even be arsed to even scan Walnut's post because it will just be a load of arsey !@#$%.
Actually no, it was pretty rational and well thought out.
Ok, maybe I was a bit harsh.
-
4Sword, this may be off topic but, even if your posts are full of good content, they are sometimes way too long and I'm discouraged to read through them :P.
Try saying that to Walnut. His other post was !@#$% huge. At least what 4Sword says is well thought out and actually makes him sound intelligent. I cant even be arsed to even scan Walnut's post because it will just be a load of arsey !@#$%.
This is one of the most ignorant posts I've ever read.
You automatically assume that it's an unintelligent post and full of "arsey !@#$%". Why don't you actually take the time to read it instead of making assumptions, or just stay out of the topic.
-
Boys and their big egos ::)
-
It's not about what relates most to blacks, it's about what relates most to gays. As far as I can imagine, the struggle blacks went through is the most similar thing to what gays are going through still today. But this is a relatively minor point.
The basic point I was making is that the two are fairly uncomparable if you look at it beyond the surface.
Straight married couples would be up in arms over this too.
Which is why I'm 100% content with civil unions.
-
Boys and their big egos ::)
What in hell?
GIRLS AND THEIR WORTHLESS POSTS 8)
-
There are things that a mother can teach a child and there are things that a father can teach a child and to say that two men or two women, or, for that matter could provide the kind of care and love that a child should get is bull crap.
What the hell. Are you trying to say that a gay couple would be unable to LOVE and CARE for a child? THAT is bull crap. That's the most idiotic thing I have heard in this topic. Gay people live and love and have feelings and are human, just like everyone else.
And what about Single parents? As you said, there are things only certain genders can teach, right? So naturally, we should take all children of single parents and give them to foster homes. Yeah right. A good enough parent can rise to the occasion and can teach a child just as well.
You sir, are putting words in to my mouth. Do I think that gay people are incapable of love and care? I most certainly do not. But a father and a mother love their kids in different ways and I think for the most ideal situation you need both. No I don't support taking kids away from single parents, however, I do not support single parents adopting kids. Being torn away from your mother because your father died would be an incredibly traumatic experience and I think it would be less traumatic for the person to stay with the single parent.
-
There are things that a mother can teach a child and there are things that a father can teach a child and to say that two men or two women, or, for that matter could provide the kind of care and love that a child should get is bull crap.
What the hell. Are you trying to say that a gay couple would be unable to LOVE and CARE for a child? THAT is bull crap. That's the most idiotic thing I have heard in this topic. Gay people live and love and have feelings and are human, just like everyone else.
And what about Single parents? As you said, there are things only certain genders can teach, right? So naturally, we should take all children of single parents and give them to foster homes. Yeah right. A good enough parent can rise to the occasion and can teach a child just as well.
You sir, are putting words in to my mouth. Do I think that gay people are incapable of love and care? I most certainly do not. But a father and a mother love their kids in different ways and I think for the most ideal situation you need both. No I don't support taking kids away from single parents, however, I do not support single parents adopting kids. Being torn away from your mother because your father died would be an incredibly traumatic experience and I think it would be less traumatic for the person to stay with the single parent.
I do not know of many single parents adopting, but a loving parent, even if there is just one (nevermind whether its male or female) is still way better than being in care.
-
Wow they are still making problems of gay marriage? Can't they just grow up and let 2 man or 2 women just marry if they want to? If that makes them happy why trying to take away that privilege?
-
Wow they are still making problems of gay marriage? Can't they just grow up and let 2 man or 2 women just marry if they want to? If that makes them happy why trying to take away that privilege?
Many people dont think it's as simple as that, H_B.
-
Wow they are still making problems of gay marriage? Can't they just grow up and let 2 man or 2 women just marry if they want to? If that makes them happy why trying to take away that privilege?
Many people dont think it's as simple as that, H_B.
Mostly because they are religious zealots. Who say things like "No because the bible says this and this". therefore it's wrong! Because the bible is always right. >_>
-
Mostly because they are religious zealots. Who say things like "No because the bible says this and this". therefore it's wrong! Because the bible is always right. >_>
You're a bit close-minded. :-\
-
Mostly because they are religious zealots. Who say things like "No because the bible says this and this". therefore it's wrong! Because the bible is always right. >_>
You're a bit close-minded. :-\
No people that are against gay marriage are close minded.
-
Mostly because they are religious zealots. Who say things like "No because the bible says this and this". therefore it's wrong! Because the bible is always right. >_>
You're a bit close-minded. :-\
No people that are against gay marriage are close minded.
No, H_B, have you even read most of the topic? Just because somebody's Christian doesnt mean they pledge their life and soul to the book.
Most of the previous posts give the reasons why people are against homosexuals marrying, and it's a lot more than just "the Bible says so".
-
H_B, just get out of every topic that requires a single brain cell please.
-
H_B, just get out of every topic that requires a single brain cell please.
-
H_B, just get out of every topic that requires a single brain cell please.
I'm surprised to see that you managed to write a normal sentence instead of the Starfox crap.
-
H_B, just get out of every topic that requires a single brain cell please.
I'm surprised to see that you managed to write a normal sentence instead of the Starfox crap.
I'm surprised you're even trying to debate such a difficult and divisive issue, seeing as how you can't even make a cohesive argument as to why a particular video game is good or bad.
-
Ok guys, cut the crap here. That means HB, stop posting, or else I'm going to start removing your posts and anything that quotes them. Get back on topic people.
-
Press Z or R twice to save this thread from destruction!
Also Zealotism has nothing to do with people thinking this is right or wrong.
Look at me; I'm a Christian; but I'm not ill-informed as to what "marriage" is. Marriage is a Hebraism for having sex. Biblically, it means to !@#$%. Laying your skirt over someone (bedsheet). Has nothing to do with the civil ceremony.
So why is not wanting a civil ceremony "zealotism"? I think you're a dipshit for thinking that. Has nothing to do with the other. Many people have their own opinions and views on this that have absolutely nothing to do with religion.
-
I'm not against anything, we all think different and I understand that.
If they are homosexual(or however you want to call it) and they love each other, I don't see why they should be bother with a stupid law like this.
My opinion about marriage:I'm pretty sure that signing a paper won't increase or decrease the love you have/feel for the other person...
-
I'm pretty sure that signing a paper won't increase or decrease the love you have/feel for the other person...
You didn't get the point. They just want to be like any other couple.
-
I'm not against anything, we all think different and I understand that.
If they are homosexual(or however you want to call it) and they love each other, I don't see why they should be bother with a stupid law like this.
My opinion about marriage:I'm pretty sure that signing a paper won't increase or decrease the love you have/feel for the other person...
Quoted for mother-!@#$% truth! High-five!
-
I'm pretty sure that signing a paper won't increase or decrease the love you have/feel for the other person...
You didn't get the point. They just want to be like any other couple.
And that goes back to MY point; they live a lifestyle that is not accepted by people as a whole, and thats something they have to accept right now. A piece of paper will not make people see them any differently then they do now. It just doesn't work that way.
Wanting to be accepted is one thing; but having the delusion of grandeur that everyone will accept them once its legal is absurd. They don't care about legally getting married at all. They can still do what they're doing either way.
-
I'm pretty sure that signing a paper won't increase or decrease the love you have/feel for the other person...
You didn't get the point. They just want to be like any other couple.
And that goes back to MY point; they live a lifestyle that is not accepted by people as a whole, and thats something they have to accept right now. A piece of paper will not make people see them any differently then they do now. It just doesn't work that way.
Wanting to be accepted is one thing; but having the delusion of grandeur that everyone will accept them once its legal is absurd. They don't care about legally getting married at all. They can still do what they're doing either way.
That's exactly what I've been ranting about.
-
It's not just "a piece of paper".
Being married or having a civil partnership means that you are allowed to invest in things together. It means that you become next of kin to your partner. It means that if your partner dies, you at least inherit some of what they left behind. It means that there is less chance of a homosexual being driven out of his home by his dead partner's family, even though he's lived there a long time.
All the reasons why most people who aren't religious actually do get married, because of all the legalities of it.
Homosexuals dont want to be married just so they can be like everyone else.
If marriage was just about religion, then I would say "who cares" but it's not just religious.
-
Yeah but you can also use your will to assign assets to your partner when you die; it's easy peasy.
It's all just a contract. That piece of paper is just a few contracts in one. :P
-
A marriage, by definition, bestows rights and obligations on the married parties, and sometimes on relatives as well, being the sole mechanism for the creation of affinal ties (in-laws). These may include:
giving a husband/wife or his/her family control over a spouse’s sexual services, labor, and property.
giving a husband/wife responsibility for a spouse’s debts.
giving a husband/wife visitation rights when his/her spouse is incarcerated or hospitalized.
giving a husband/wife control over his/her spouse’s affairs when the spouse is incapacitated.
establishing the second legal guardian of a parent’s child.
establishing a joint fund of property for the benefit of children.
establishing a relationship between the families of the spouses.
-
Boys and their big egos ::)
What the hell are you on about? Egos aren't even relevant. If someone said all your posts were nothing but arsey !@#$% you'd be offended, oh wait I forgot you have no ego or feelings whatsoever.
Boys and their big egos ::)
What in hell?
GIRLS AND THEIR WORTHLESS POSTS 8)
lol, owned.
Regardless, I think, as has been said before, allowing gay marriage is not only an outright bastardization of the sanctity of marriage- a sacred, holy, religious ritual, (applies to all religions, so you're basically offending the vast majority of the population) but it is also pointless when we have reached the fair compromise of civil partnership. !@#$% minority groups, whatever we do, they'll never be satisfied...
OLO I ASSOCIATE MYSELF WITH CERTAIN PEOPLE THIS GIVES ME SPECIAL TREATMENT
Come on, marriage shouldn't even have anything to do with gay people, since most of the ones out of the closet aren't even religious anyway.
-
Boys and their big egos ::)
What the hell are you on about? Egos aren't even relevant. If someone said all your posts were nothing but arsey !@#$% you'd be offended, oh wait I forgot you have no ego or feelings whatsoever.
Boys and their big egos ::)
What in hell?
GIRLS AND THEIR WORTHLESS POSTS 8)
lol, owned.
gtfo my post, silly kyubi! :P
Regardless, I think, as has been said before, allowing gay marriage is not only an outright bastardization of the sanctity of marriage- a sacred, holy, religious ritual, (applies to all religions, so you're basically offending the vast majority of the population) but it is also pointless when we have reached the fair compromise of civil partnership. !@#$% minority groups, whatever we do, they'll never be satisfied...
OLO I ASSOCIATE MYSELF WITH CERTAIN PEOPLE THIS GIVES ME SPECIAL TREATMENT
Come on, marriage shouldn't even have anything to do with gay people, since most of the ones out of the closet aren't even religious anyway.
You are mistaken.
In the UK we call it Civil Partnership. In the USA I think they just call it marriage. (as civil partnership and marriage are basically the same thing, just CP is minus the religious aspect) It's not like the homosexuals in California already have CP and now want marriage. Without marriage they wont have anything to legally bind themselves to their partners.
-
It's just gonna double the divorce rate in California. Also, people keep repeating what I meant to say. It's a piece of mother-!@#$% paper.
-
It's just gonna double the divorce rate in California. Also, people keep repeating what I meant to say. It's a piece of mother-!@#$% paper.
Exactly, but it's a very useful piece of mother-!@#$% paper.
-
It's just gonna double the divorce rate in California. Also, people keep repeating what I meant to say. It's a piece of mother-!@#$% paper.
So is a birth certificate.
So is a passport.
So is a lot of things.
Doesn't mean they're not important or necessary.
-
I'm gonna stop arguing... Obviously im gonna get shot down on every one of my arguments so !@#$% it. Thank god you dont live in CA tho :) my 1 votes beats your 0 votes 1-0.
-
I'm gonna stop arguing... Obviously im gonna get shot down on every one of my arguments so !@#$% it. Thank god you dont live in CA tho :) my 1 votes beats your 0 votes 1-0.
That's the whole point of a debate. Both sides give evidence as to why they believe what they do. It's not like there's supposed to be some big conclusion at the end where everyone agrees on one thing.
-
You were trying to say it was wrong because it was insignificant which isn't a sufficient case for it being wrong. If you did not think it really mattered, the concept of marriage in itself, then why should you be so defensive over it or take offense when others see it differently. After all, according to you, it is just a piece of paper.
-
You were trying to say it was wrong because it was insignificant which isn't a sufficient case for it being wrong. If you did not think it really mattered, the concept of marriage in itself, then why should you be so defensive over it or take offense when others see it differently. After all, according to you, it is just a piece of paper.
lol just like you to say that.
-
You were trying to say it was wrong because it was insignificant which isn't a sufficient case for it being wrong. If you did not think it really mattered, the concept of marriage in itself, then why should you be so defensive over it or take offense when others see it differently. After all, according to you, it is just a piece of paper.
lol just like you to say that.
You're right; it is just like 4Sword to make an excellent, intelligent point like that. Your rebuttal was a bit lacking, though.
-
keep it up! I'm loving this so much!
-
keep it up! I'm loving this so much!
It's fun to spam!
-
Shefali you're really not helping it.
You're kind of dragging it on by commenting on his posts. If you ignored them wouldn't post.
This topic is getting kind of out of hand, if it keeps going like this I'm gonna lock it.
-
It's just gonna double the divorce rate in California. Also, people keep repeating what I meant to say. It's a piece of mother-!@#$% paper.
So is a birth certificate.
So is a passport.
So is a lot of things.
Doesn't mean they're not important or necessary.
Wait, how is it not necessary or important but useful at the same time?
How about they just change gay marriage to civil partnerships then? Would be a HELL OF A !@#$% LOT EASIER, HAY!
-
It's just gonna double the divorce rate in California. Also, people keep repeating what I meant to say. It's a piece of mother-!@#$% paper.
So is a birth certificate.
So is a passport.
So is a lot of things.
Doesn't mean they're not important or necessary.
Wait, how is it not necessary or important but useful at the same time?
How about they just change gay marriage to civil partnerships then? Would be a HELL OF A !@#$% LOT EASIER, HAY!
Oh I bet we all wish it were that simple.
-
What's not simple about it? Ok, some jerk-off will object to it, but at the end of the day, if you make a non-religious, yet equally valuable version of marriage, I doubt there'd be much complaining.
-
The same people that made gay marriage legal will keep if from being illegal. 'Nuff said.
-
It's not just "a piece of paper".
Being married or having a civil partnership means that you are allowed to invest in things together. It means that you become next of kin to your partner. It means that if your partner dies, you at least inherit some of what they left behind. It means that there is less chance of a homosexual being driven out of his home by his dead partner's family, even though he's lived there a long time.
All the reasons why most people who aren't religious actually do get married, because of all the legalities of it.
Homosexuals dont want to be married just so they can be like everyone else.
If marriage was just about religion, then I would say "who cares" but it's not just religious.
Read that, does it say "love" somewhere in there? or does it say "I'll keep your stuff when you die"?...
And I don't wanna talk about religion...
-
The answer to whether or not gay couple's can marry is very simple:
Society gives us to types of marriages, spiritual, which is what happens when you get married in a church, or elsewhere by a priest or some other religious figure.
Then there is being legally bound to each other for taxation, legal purposes, medical purposes, basic *rights* which are given to all men/women under the Constitution of the United States. It says it in the start of the constitutional itself, 'all men are created equal', men in this context, being mankind.
To deny anyone any right, is unconstitutional. It's not a matter of being for or against gay marriage, or being for or against homosexuality, it's basic constitutional rights. Everyone needs to pull their heads out of their asses and read the constitution before people run it over to where there's nothing left of it.. it's so close to happening and the ignorance of the average American person towards it isn't helping.
This isn't a religious issue or a sexuality issue, it's a constitutional matter, the issue is black and white, plain and simple. They're legally being denied rights they have in every state, by laws in the state stating 'marriage is between a man and a woman' that in itself is unconstitutional, I would love to see any religious person tell me it's not, the only way it could be is, if homosexuals were subhuman, which they aren't.. homosexuality roots back just as far as humanity itself. It pre-dates Christianity.
-
I hope the Gay Rights Movement will be looked at by future generations as we do the Civil Rights Movement today.
Don't say that gays shouldn't protest. Protesting brought up the issues of the civil rights movement to the forefront after years of prejudice and segregation. Anger fuels all major political changes, and gays have the right to protest as they please.
Don't say that gays shouldn't have parades. If you don't want to see them, don't watch them! That's easy. That's like saying, "I don't like this TV show so it should go off the air." Freedom of Speech and Press is a right we are guaranteed. Disagree with it all you want, but stop complaining about it.
Don't say that you're voting yes just because some gay people at your university spread propaganda. If you blame an entire community for the shitty behavior of some activists, all you are doing is hurting the people that are actually acting proactively in the matter. In all major social movements there are people that are bigoted and far too radical, but that does not mean the entire population of that movement is the same. Help the GOOD people, don't hurt the bigots.
Don't say that marriage is strictly a religious thing. If you still think that, I'm shocked. Yes, it has religious meanings and such, but it's not ONLY religious. If it was strictly religious, there wouldn't be all these laws and benefits ensuring rights to married couples. Once there's a law about it, it's at least partly a legal matter. And if citizens are equal before the law, we need to have equal rights in the legal system.
And come on, does it really hurt you that much to make a couple thousand people happy?
-
Don't say that gays shouldn't have parades.
wut? o_0
I don't care if they are homosexual or what they do, as long as they don't poke me everything its OK.
Anyway, I was just thinking at how funny this is...not homosexuals or marriage, this "law"...stopping someone from getting married because it's sexual preference it's different...meh.
-
It's not just "a piece of paper".
Being married or having a civil partnership means that you are allowed to invest in things together. It means that you become next of kin to your partner. It means that if your partner dies, you at least inherit some of what they left behind. It means that there is less chance of a homosexual being driven out of his home by his dead partner's family, even though he's lived there a long time.
All the reasons why most people who aren't religious actually do get married, because of all the legalities of it.
Homosexuals dont want to be married just so they can be like everyone else.
If marriage was just about religion, then I would say "who cares" but it's not just religious.
Read that, does it say "love" somewhere in there? or does it say "I'll keep your stuff when you die"?...
And I don't wanna talk about religion...
Yes I know it doesnt say love in there anywhere. But maybe marriage is a lot more than just loving someone these days. However, I would say that in all marriage the foundation reason for getting married should be love, not "I'll keep your stuff when you die" type things.
-
How is vote NO on prop 8 a debate, that sounds more of like a demand to me. Even with MiN's notion of balance with the other thread. I'm surprised they haven't turned into no/yes circle jerk threads yet.
-
How is vote NO on prop 8 a debate, that sounds more of like a demand to me. Even with MiN's notion of balance with the other thread. I'm surprised they haven't turned into no/yes circle jerk threads yet.
They haven't?
As for my opinion, I expressed it in the Yes thread, but given the aforementioned circle-jerk nature, it does belong here. Nevertheless, not going to bother with that.
-
How is vote NO on prop 8 a debate, that sounds more of like a demand to me. Even with MiN's notion of balance with the other thread. I'm surprised they haven't turned into no/yes circle jerk threads yet.
This topic doesn't belong here at all.
I don't think anyone even read my first post.. :(
No one said 'YAH VASH YOUR RIGHT, ITS NOT A RELIGIOUS ISSUE'
-
YAH VASH YOUR RIGHT, ITS NOT A RELIGIOUS ISSUE
I totally agree. It's entirely a constitutional matter.
-
Thank God it would set gay marriage back 5 years.
-
Thank God it would set gay marriage back 5 years.
If you hate tolerance so much, go move to Texas and pleasure yourself with everyone else to the idea of a religion-governed society.
-
Thank God it would set gay marriage back 5 years.
If you hate tolerance so much, go move to Texas and pleasure yourself with everyone else to the idea of a religion-governed society.
The bible is pretty darn sexy to me.
-
Who brought this back up? Someone lock this before the drama restarts.
-
it has passed done and done locked