NationStates Jolt Archive

Are you for or against it?

Personally I am against it. Homosexuality is unnatural, going aginst humans instinctive urges to procreate to help forward the species.

Marriage is intended for procreation, gay marriage can never be consumated and goes against the intentions of marriage and there for it is not valid/

Your thoughts?

*pops popcorn*

Popcorn. Get your popcorn here.

Free beer with each purchase unless you are under 21 in the US or under 18 abroad.

legalise it-animals are gay-its natural-rader rader rader-criik gets deated- thread over...?

Are you for or against it?

Personally I am against it. Homosexuality is unnatural, going aginst humans instinctive urges to procreate to help forward the species.

Marriage is intended for procreation, gay marriage can never be consumated and goes against the intentions of marriage and there for it is not valid/

Your thoughts?

since when is marriage for procreation? marriage is a religious and legal process to affirm and recognise a commitment to a relationship.

edit: why did i take the bait? i have an exam tomorrow. stupid troll.

Are you for or against it?

Personally I am against it. Homosexuality is unnatural, going aginst humans instinctive urges to procreate to help forward the species.

Marriage is intended for procreation, gay marriage can never be consumated and goes against the intentions of marriage and there for it is not valid/

Your thoughts?
You're absolutely right. :fluffle:

And it's about time someone brought this topic up!

legalise it-animals are gay-its natural-rader rader rader-criik gets deated- thread over...?

Some animals are unnatural as well.

Are you for or against it?

Personally I am against it. Homosexuality is unnatural, going aginst humans instinctive urges to procreate to help forward the species.

Marriage is intended for procreation, gay marriage can never be consumated and goes against the intentions of marriage and there for it is not valid/

Your thoughts?

*gets some popcorn from AC2*

My thoughts are that your thoughts belong to an antiquated tradition that will, I hope fervently, be something the human race grows out of soon.

Are you for or against it?

Personally I am against it. Homosexuality is unnatural, going aginst humans instinctive urges to procreate to help forward the species.

Marriage is intended for procreation, gay marriage can never be consumated and goes against the intentions of marriage and there for it is not valid/

Your thoughts?

FOR

It does not harm others.

Anything else is inequality and authoritarianist.

*pops popcorn*

Popcorn. Get your popcorn here.

Free beer with each purchase unless you are under 21 in the US or under 18 abroad.

I'll take two bags. I've heard good reviews of this show.

since when is marriage for procreation? marriage is a religious and legal process to affirm and recognise a commitment to a relationship.

edit: why did i take the bait? i have an exam tomorrow. stupid troll.

Amazing, isn't it? "I'll just post one reply," you say and the next thing, it's three in the morning ...

Are you for or against it?

Personally I am against it. Homosexuality is unnatural, going aginst humans instinctive urges to procreate to help forward the species.

Marriage is intended for procreation, gay marriage can never be consumated and goes against the intentions of marriage and there for it is not valid/

Your thoughts?

Criik,I told you.No silly threads.
Anyway.I'm all for it.What the hell gives me or you the right to say homosexuals can't marry?What makes them better than us?The answer,of course,is nothing.We can't decide what people do with their lives,because they aren't our lives.
Also,I thought they found homosexuality was genetic?I might be wrong,but doesn't that make it natural?If it's genetic,how can you help it?
And no,marriage isn't intended for procreation.Marriage is a cermony showing you want to spend the rest of your life with a particular person.To me,it doesn't matter whether it's a man and a woman,two men or two women.Who are you to say they can't love each other?It isn't your place.

Fine, have kids.

Don't come crying to me when we surpass the earth's carrying capacity and all starve to death less we resort to canabalism.

edit: 1000TH POST!!!!!!!!!!! YEAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!! WOOOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FOR

It does not harm others.

Anything else is inequality and authoritarianist.

It isn't, as marriage is a privilage not a right for government to provide. I don't care if gay people get recognized as married by some wacko church, but there is no reason why the government should provide you with that privalige.

Some animals are unnatural as well.

Wait...

Nature... is... unnatural?

I bet some trees send male bits to other male bits. Are they unnatural too?

Ooh... how about organized religion? That doesn't occur in nature. Is it unnatural?

Some animals are unnatural as well.

So now nature's unnatural?
You heard it here first people.

Some animals are unnatural as well.

SIGGED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Personally I'm for it, It's no skin off my nose if a gay couple want to get married. Homosexuality is natural, it goes on throughout the animal kingdom and we are just another type of animal (though supposedly more intelligent).

Marriage is a confirmation of the love between two people. I don't see why it should be limited to just those capable of procreation, otherwise we may as well dictate that couples who cannot or do not want children should have their marriages anulled or be prevented from marrying in the first place.

I acknowlege that marriage has been used throughout history as a tool for forming alliances between countries or families regardless of whether they love each other and also that it has been used simply for "convenience" where a countries laws give married couples an easier financial life.

Pragmatically - who cares? given the population problems of the world today does it really matter if a few couples want to get married and have a long term same sex relationship?.

So now nature's unnatural?
You heard it here first people.

*makes a note, passes Arinola some popcorn*

It isn't, as marriage is a privilage not a right for government to provide. I don't care if gay people get recognized as married by some wacko church, but there is no reason why the government should provide you with that privalige.

And what reason is there that they should provide you, or heterosexual couples that may or may not include you, with that 'privelege'?

Criik,I told you.No silly threads.
Anyway.I'm all for it.What the hell gives me or you the right to say homosexuals can't marry?What makes them better than us?The answer,of course,is nothing.We can't decide what people do with their lives,because they aren't our lives.
Also,I thought they found homosexuality was genetic?I might be wrong,but doesn't that make it natural?If it's genetic,how can you help it?
And no,marriage isn't intended for procreation.Marriage is a cermony showing you want to spend the rest of your life with a particular person.To me,it doesn't matter whether it's a man and a woman,two men or two women.Who are you to say they can't love each other?It isn't your place.

1.Some might say it makes it a genetic defect.
2.It isn't their place to decide what the government should provide for them either.

Personally I'm for it, It's no skin off my nose if a gay couple want to get married. Homosexuality is natural, it goes on throughout the animal kingdom and we are just another type of animal (though supposedly more intelligent).

Marriage is a confirmation of the love between two people. I don't see why it should be limited to just those capable of procreation, otherwise we may as well dictate that couples who cannot or do not want children should have their marriages anulled or be prevented from marrying in the first place.

I acknowlege that marriage has been used throughout history as a tool for forming alliances between countries or families regardless of whether they love each other and also that it has been used simply for "convenience" where a countries laws give married couples an easier financial life.

Pragmatically - who cares? given the population problems of the world today does it really matter if a few couples want to get married and have a long term same sex relationship?.

Well done.QFT.

So now nature's unnatural?
You heard it here first people.

Actually, I got it first. :p

Don't come crying to me when we surpass the earth's carrying capacity and all starve to death less we resort to canabalism.

but I for one support canabalism :(

edit: 1000TH POST!!!!!!!!!!! YEAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!! WOOOOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pfft I bet I have more…

Actually, I got it first. :p

Damn you to the bloody bowels of hell!





But for getting it first,have a cookie.And a taco.*Offers said items.*

Some animals are unnatural as well.

Un-natural is a very subjective term, you dolt, and irrelivent to the discusion.

1.Some might say it makes it a genetic defect.
2.It isn't their place to decide what the government should provide for them either.

1. Some might say that liking cheese is a genetic defect. Should we prevent cheese lovers from getting married?

2. Well... democracy and all...

I'll take two bags. I've heard good reviews of this show.

*Hands over 2 bags of Popcorn*

Are you over 18?

oo! i say! i've just noticed!! i'm AdminBots Boyfriend! oo! do you think he'll marry me?!!?

So now nature's unnatural?
You heard it here first people.

quite so:

Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

Damn you to the bloody bowels of hell!





But for getting it first,have a cookie.And a taco.*Offers said items.*

W00t! Taco! And cookie! And bloody bowels of hell!


Wait... bloody? What has Hell been up to since I left?

oo! i say! i've just noticed!! i'm AdminBots Boyfriend! oo! do you think he'll marry me?!!?
Stop being so fucking unnatural!

Are you for or against it?

Personally I am against it. Homosexuality is unnatural, going aginst humans instinctive urges to procreate to help forward the species.

Marriage is intended for procreation, gay marriage can never be consumated and goes against the intentions of marriage and there for it is not valid/

Your thoughts?

Seconded, plus if we legalize it we'd be marrying our pets next and it will all go downhill to the point where marragie is between anything, and that would do hella damage to society.

Are you for or against it?

Personally I am against it. Homosexuality is unnatural, going aginst humans instinctive urges to procreate to help forward the species.

Marriage is intended for procreation, gay marriage can never be consumated and goes against the intentions of marriage and there for it is not valid/

Your thoughts?

I am no longer willing to procreate, and hubby is no longer able, is our marriage now invalid?

Are you for or against it?I'm not against it, so I guess I'm for it, much like I'm not against "people of color" being allowed to choose where they sit in a bus.
Personally I am against it. Homosexuality is unnatural, going aginst humans instinctive urges to procreate to help forward the species.If humans were having problems due to underpopulation, this might be a valid point. It is not.
Marriage is intended for procreation,No, not really. Marriage was intended for political unions, economic reasons, and then finally out of love. Procreation only ever figured in when it came to making an heir.
gay marriage can never be consumated You mean they can't have sex?
and goes against the intentions of marriage and there for it is not valid/Intentions of some, yes. Those that wish to keep marriage political or economical or those that came up with the idea that marriage needs to be about procreation. However, the latter don't bitch about infertile couples, meaning their point is invalidated.
Your thoughts?None of that would affect you as long as you don't marry anyone of the same sex. Why do you even care?

1.Some might say it makes it a genetic defect.
2.It isn't their place to decide what the government should provide for them either.

The government provides benefits to married heterosexual couples now. I am a citizen of my country, just as they are, and yet they have benefits from the government that are denied to me because I'm a lesbian. Why is that fair? Maybe the government shouldn't be involved with marriage, but it is, so we have to deal with the current situation, not a hypothetical future one. Why is this fair? It's like saying "Criik's name is spelled with two of the same vowel next to each other, that's unnatural, he's not allowed to marry." Oh, and by the way, my Lady and I consummated the heck out of our partnership. :p

oo! i say! i've just noticed!! i'm AdminBots Boyfriend! oo! do you think he'll marry me?!!?

Please do not spam my thread.

*Hands over 2 bags of Popcorn*

Are you over 18?

Yes I am.

Ouch! Unnatural animals! The argument of someone clawing for support

Seconded, plus if we legalize it we'd be marrying our pets next and it will all go downhill to the point where marragie is between anything, and that would do hella damage to society.Are you being sarcastic or inane?

W00t! Taco! And cookie! And bloody bowels of hell!


Wait... bloody? What has Hell been up to since I left?

Hell was in a car crash.Internal bleeing.Might not make it :(

I am no longer willing to procreate, and hubby is no longer able, is our marriage now invalid?

No, because you have performed the duty that comes with marriage.

Please do not spam my thread.

please do not troll general o_0

Please do not spam my thread.

Wait,wait.
This thread wasn't spam in the first place?

If humans can be un-natural, why can't animals?

1.Some might say it makes it a genetic defect.You could argue the same for lefties. Doesn't make a good argument though.

No, because you have performed the duty that comes with marriage.

So if a couple gets married and discovers they're infertile, their marriage is void?

Seconded, plus if we legalize it we'd be marrying our pets next and it will all go downhill to the point where marragie is between anything, and that would do hella damage to society.

What the hell are you talking about?
"If you let the Gays marry,soon they'll be marrying kittens.Please,think of the kittens."
Now look at your sentence again,and hang your head in shame.

If humans can be un-natural, why can't animals?

an interesting point but made for the wrong reasons and in a slightly twisted way, so i'm not going to pursue it.

What is meant by gay marriagein this thread?
Is it a civil union in order to get inheritance rights etc or is it the full religious ceremony?
I'm all for affording the gays full legal rights in a civil cermoney, they're people like the rest of us and deserve the same rights, but it seems unfair if any goverment is going to shove through legislation forcing the religious kind to be legal against the wishes of the worshippers themselves.

Seconded, plus if we legalize it we'd be marrying our pets next and it will all go downhill to the point where marragie is between anything, and that would do hella damage to society.

Reminds me of something Ellen Degeneres once said. (She's a comedian, talk show host, and also an unnatural lesbian, for those who don't know)

“These people scare me, and they think we’re weird!? I don’t want to marry a goat, I really don’t. I can’t even imagine dating a goat, getting to the point where you make that commitment!”

If humans can be un-natural, why can't animals?What is natural if not "occurring in nature"? Animals can be unnatural. Circus animals, for instance. You don't see many bears riding around on unicycles in the wild. But these are things they learn from humans, and unless you can make a sound argument supporting the idea that someone is going out and teaching animals homosexuality, you might want to drop the argument.

If humans can be un-natural, why can't animals?

Because homosexuality isn't unnatural,that's why.
Your train of thought,now that's unnatural.

What is meant by gay marriagein this thread?
Is it a civil union in order to get inheritance rights etc or is it the full religious ceremony?
I'm all for affording the gays full legal rights in a civil cermoney, they're people like the rest of us and deserve the same rights, but it seems unfair if any goverment is going to shove through legislation forcing the religious kind to be legal against the wishes of the worshippers themselves.Is there legislation in place that would force a church to marry a heterosexual couple if the church said no?

Is there legislation in place that would force a church to marry a heterosexual couple if the church said no?

But you could argue that heterosexual marriage isn't against their beliefs,so I doubt they're going to disagree.Point taken,though.

What is meant by gay marriagein this thread?
Is it a civil union in order to get inheritance rights etc or is it the full religious ceremony?
I'm all for affording the gays full legal rights in a civil cermoney, they're people like the rest of us and deserve the same rights, but it seems unfair if any goverment is going to shove through legislation forcing the religious kind to be legal against the wishes of the worshippers themselves.

Hard to tell from the OP, but to me, I have no desire to force any churches to marry me and my Lady. We'll get along just fine without. Look at it this way, the Catholic Church refuses to marry previously divorced people and no government has proposed forcing them to do so. It won't happen.

Gay civil unions is a drain on funds, no children or stable family. Why should the government pay for that?

Gay civil unions is a drain on funds, no children or stable family. Why should the government pay for that?

So are straight marriages with no kids (from sterility). What's the difference?

Gay civil unions is a drain on funds, no children or stable family. Why should the government pay for that?

I pay taxes, why can't I get the benefit of them? And my family has been stable for 23 years? I think that's longer than you've been alive. :rolleyes:

So are straight marriages with no kids (from sterility). What's the difference?

They tried and failed. However gay people have no intention in the first place.

Gay civil unions is a drain on funds, no children or stable family. Why should the government pay for that?

Why can't gays have a stable family?That's the worst sweeping generalisation I've seen my friend.
Drain on funds?How?
Ok,so gays can't have children.They can adopt kids though,provide disadvantaged children with a home.That a bad thing?

You're absolutely right. :fluffle:

And it's about time someone brought this topic up!

I'm upset with the OP, for the fact that he did not mention the most important thing; sanctity of marriage. BTW: I have thought up what I'm getting you!

But you could argue that heterosexual marriage isn't against their beliefs,so I doubt they're going to disagree.Point taken,though.I heartily doubt a mormon church could be forced to marry me should I someday choose a wife if the people in charge of that place of worship didn't allow it on grounds of me not being mormon.

They tried and failed. However gay people have no intention in the first place.

What if they didn't?

And furthermore, why do you care?

Other groups get more tax $$$ than they ever will.

They tried and failed. However gay people have no intention in the first place.
Well, if I ever get married chances are I won't have any intention to have kids, either.
So I can't marry then?

I'm upset with the OP, for the fact that he did not mention the most important thing; sanctity of marriage. BTW: I have thought up what I'm getting you!Indeed. Well, about time! ;P

I want some popcorn.

about marrige being a privilege from the government: the god damn government has the privilege of making the laws, it is here for the people, and just because YOU find people (and animals) unnatural doesnt give you the right or privilege or power to impose your view on others. I say either take away government marrige benefits and make it strictly a religious issue, or let whoever the hell wants to marry marry, and leave religion out of it completely. In the US at least there is supposed to be a separation of church and state, marrige must be seen as an institution of one or the other, not both.

I shouldnt have, but it is sooo hard to resist.

Sorry, but gay marriage cannot be banned because Catholics/Christians are all butt hurt about it.

Banning gay marriage is also unconstitutional (in the US)

The Fourtheenth Amendment states that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The equal protection clause is of particular importance, for it means that no citizen can be denied rights granted to another citizen if there is no compelling state interest to do so. There is no compelling state interest to bar gays from the same rights that straight couples enjoy when they are married. Even redefining marriage isn't constitutional, for sexual orientation, just as with race (see the Supreme Court case of Loving v. Virginia), is not an issue that the state can be legitimately concerned with.

Also, Article Four, Section One of the Constitution contains the full faith and credit clause, stating that "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." This means that Civil Union in each state must be upheld should the couple leave that state. However the states are currently ignoring this part of the Constiution, which is neither legal nor just.

Gay civil unions is a drain on funds, no children or stable family. Why should the government pay for that?Orphanages are a drain on funds too. If you let gay couples adopt, you can balance it out. Plus, gay people can still have children, it's just slightly more complicated.

They tried and failed. However gay people have no intention in the first place.

They failed,so surely their marriage is now void in your viewpoint?
And since when was marriage purely about children?It isn't the soul purpose of it anymore.LOVE is now the soul purpose of marriage,in nearly all cases.You marry someone because you love them.What gives you the right to say homosexuals can't love each other?

They tried and failed. However gay people have no intention in the first place.Hm... does that mean that Cheney's lesbian daughter didn't intend to get pregnant?

Yes, you're absolutely right, gay marriage is an abomination.

I heartily doubt a mormon church could be forced to marry me should I someday choose a wife if the people in charge of that place of worship didn't allow it on grounds of me not being mormon.

True.I do take your point.But we're getting a little off topic.The point is churches are much less likely to stop a heterosexual marriage than a homosexual marriage,that's all I'm saying.

Hey Criik, should heterosexual couples be allowed to marry if they have health issues and can't reproduce?

Children need a mother and a father. Science has proved that mothers are much more suited for caring for a child then men are, yet children also need male role models.Irrelevant. It's also proven that children need nutrition to grow up healthy, and not all of them get that either. Focus there first.
They can do what they like, but marriage is for stable families.Bullshit. There's plenty of unstable families who's parents are married.

Children need a mother and a father. Science has proved that mothers are much more suited for caring for a child then men are, yet children also need male role models.



By paying for all their benefits etc..



They can do what they like, but marriage is for stable families.


I agree, children are much better cared for in a mother and father environment.

True.I do take your point.But we're getting a little off topic.The point is churches are much less likely to stop a heterosexual marriage than a homosexual marriage,that's all I'm saying.Which is irrelevant. It's a non-governmental organization and there's no reason why if they say they won't marry homosexuals they have to.

I agree, children are much better cared for in a mother and father environment.

Not exactly. Ever see those families with a drunk dad?

Which is better, two gays or a beaten mom and drunk dad?

Irrelevant. It's also proven that children need nutrition to grow up healthy, and not all of them get that either. Focus there first.
Bullshit. There's plenty of unstable families who's parents are married.

Hmm maybe I was to good at impersonating one of Criiks insane arguments (read the edit)

What is meant by gay marriagein this thread?
Is it a civil union in order to get inheritance rights etc or is it the full religious ceremony?
I'm all for affording the gays full legal rights in a civil cermoney, they're people like the rest of us and deserve the same rights, but it seems unfair if any goverment is going to shove through legislation forcing the religious kind to be legal against the wishes of the worshippers themselves.

That doesn't follow.

While the religious and legal aspects of a marriage usually take place at the same event (the blessing of the priest and the signing of the register of marriages) they are actually seperate. This can be show by the simple fact that a couple can be married without a religious ceremony and often are. So government legislation declaring "gay marriage" to be legal has no bearing at all on the religious side.

It does not mean that a Priest/Pastor/whatever who does not wish to perform the ceremony then HAS to. If you live in the UK a Church of England priest will not marry you if you live outside his (now her as well) parish (and that's for heterosexual marriage). I don't know if it's the same for Catholics in the UK, I only know the COE one because a colleage at work was not allowed to marry her fiancee at the church she wanted untill she had lived at her aunt's house for 3 weeks and become a member of that parish.

I agree, children are much better cared for in a mother and father environment.

How can you possibly prove that?
It's been proven in a few psychological studies (which I can't source,they're in an A Level textbook of mine) that children simply need a caregiver.It doesn't matter if that caregiver is male or female,so long as they form a bond with someone who will care for them.

Indeed. Well, about time! ;P

Well it's revelent. Religion is important when it comes to marriage, and most deffinitly in parenting. Good Christians are good parents. :P Well believe me, it's cool.

Are you for or against it?

Personally I am against it. Homosexuality is unnatural, going aginst humans instinctive urges to procreate to help forward the species.

Marriage is intended for procreation, gay marriage can never be consumated and goes against the intentions of marriage and there for it is not valid/

Your thoughts?

I like french toast. :)

Yes I am.

Ouch! Unnatural animals! The argument of someone clawing for support

*hands over the two beers*

Popcorn people get your popcorn with beer here and watch the fireworks.

Yeah, because females are better at raising kids? are we seriously going to base your ability to get married on your child rearing skills? and if we are, then quite honestly I know a much higher percentage of heterosexuals who ought to be banned from marrige than homosexuals. In general I would also say that the long term relationships of homosexuals I am close to are more stable than the heterosexuals. So I realy really really miss your whole family stability/child development point.

Why can't gays have a stable family?That's the worst sweeping generalisation I've seen my friend.
Drain on funds?How?
Ok,so gays can't have children.They can adopt kids though,provide disadvantaged children with a home.That a bad thing?
When you think about this yes. I haven't read the studies about whether gay parents can adversely affect the children/are just as good parents but we've all been kids. How can you put the id through the years of bullying through being the kid with gay parents and therefore labelled "the/that gay kid"?

Well it's revelent. Religion is important when it comes to marriage, and most deffinitly in parenting. Good Christians are good parents. :P Well believe me, it's cool.
Which is why good Agnostics like me have decided to stay childless. I don't want my kids to grow up suffering in a godless home. Think of the children! I believe it when I see it.

Not exactly. Ever see those families with a drunk dad?

Which is better, two gays or a beaten mom and drunk dad?

A drunk dad, obviously. Two gays would turn their kid gay and bring about the end of humanity as we know it, so it's clear that a drunk dad would be by far the better option.

Criik, I think you need to realize that marriage and sex are two entirely different things.
The point of marriage is not to have kids, because it is perfectly legal to have kids outside of marriage.
It's not to have sex either, because again, it's perfectly legal to have sex outside of marriage.
What marriage does is give each partner certain rights over each other, like being able to decide certain things for them if they become too sick to communicate.
It is not legally related to sex in any way.
Now, I fail to see why "unnaturality" is cause for banning something, because in case you haven't noticed, society itself is unnatural. A lot of natural stuff is bad, too. Like hurricanes.

Hmm maybe I was to good at impersonating one of Criiks insane arguments (read the edit)Yeah. You had me fooled. Try tossing in a couple "obviously"s in italics the next time ;)

A drunk dad, obviously. Two gays would turn their kid gay and bring about the end of humanity as we know it, so it's clear that a drunk dad would be by far the better option.

According to your theory, gays can be "cured" by being raised by flaming heterosexuals. And then they'll be goodthinkers.

I find this whole debate to be a moot point since, being Canadian, I've already won.

Don't want me and Richard to marry, Criisk? Try and stop us!

Aaaahahahahaaaa! (That was an evil laugh, not a mocking laugh.)

Yeah. You had me fooled. Try tossing in a couple "obviously"s in italics the next time ;)

The thing is, it's to easy to be as stupid as Criik is, which means it's hard to spot the differnce ;)

When you think about this yes. I haven't read the studies about whether gay parents can adversely affect the children/are just as good parents but we've all been kids. How can you put the id through the years of bullying through being the kid with gay parents and therefore labelled "the/that gay kid"?That's like arguing in favor of keeping schools segregated because a little black kid might get bullied by the whites.

The thing is, it's to easy to be as stupid as Criik is, which means it's hard to spot the differnce ;)I know. Nowadays you have to blow things massively out of proportion to satirize someone, because chances are, someone with those opinions actually exists. :eek:

When you think about this yes. I haven't read the studies about whether gay parents can adversely affect the children/are just as good parents but we've all been kids. How can you put the id through the years of bullying through being the kid with gay parents and therefore labelled "the/that gay kid"?

By fostering an early interest in martial arts on your kids' part.

Or, if you're not in to that, just beat up the kids that are making fun of him directly.

That's like arguing in favor of keeping schools segregated because a little black kid might get bullied by the whites.

Considering the first few times they tried it they had to have the police on site, I'd say that's a very good argument, actually.
False, of course, but very good anyway.

Criik, I think you need to realize that marriage and sex are two entirely different things.
The point of marriage is not to have kids, because it is perfectly legal to have kids outside of marriage.
It's not to have sex either, because again, it's perfectly legal to have sex outside of marriage.
What marriage does is give each partner certain rights over each other, like being able to decide certain things for them if they become too sick to communicate.
It is not legally related to sex in any way.
Now, I fail to see why "unnaturality" is cause for banning something, because in case you haven't noticed, society itself is unnatural. A lot of natural stuff is bad, too. Like hurricanes.

bt the point of a government civil union is so it can support the "family"

bt the point of a government civil union is so it can support the "family"

No; the point is to allow the two to live together and share their assets.

And the love factor is about the other 90% of it.

Which is why good Agnostics like me have decided to stay childless. I don't want my kids to grow up suffering in a godless home. Think of the children! I believe it when I see it.

The children need that unity and faith, I agree. You might be Agnostic, but you're wise. And see it you shall!

*Okay Im done, but will stay for the show. Could I get some more popcorn? and because I live in Norway its okay for me to get beer at nineteen, so I will take one of those as well.

Thanks*

No; the point is to allow the two to live together and share their assets.

And the love factor is about the other 90% of it.

Thats the point of marriage on it's own, not a civil union.

According to your theory, gays can be "cured" by being raised by flaming heterosexuals. And then they'll be goodthinkers.

Not entirely; some children, raised by good heterosexual parents, choose to be gay to rebel against their parent's rule. It's the teenage thing.

However, if raised by a homosexual couple, the child will end up gay. The thing is, they'll be more unlikely to 'rebel' against their parents and turn to the straight, true, path. Mainly because homosexual couples are incapable of imposing authority on their children, so there is nothing for them to rebel against.

That's like arguing in favor of keeping schools segregated because a little black kid might get bullied by the whites.
QFT.

I find this whole debate to be a moot point since, being Canadian, I've already won.

Don't want me and Richard to marry, Criisk? Try and stop us!

Aaaahahahahaaaa! (That was an evil laugh, not a mocking laugh.)
Next time, go with the Muahahahahaaaaa. Saves the explanation. ;)

Not entirely; some children, raised by good heterosexual parents, choose to be gay to rebel against their parent's rule. It's the teenage thing.

However, if raised by a homosexual couple, the child will end up gay. The thing is, they'll be more unlikely to 'rebel' against their parents and turn to the straight, true, path. Mainly because homosexual couples are incapable of imposing authority on their children, so there is nothing for them to rebel against.

Ok, cut the fundy act Nadkor. Your political compass scores in your sig tell me that this is all just a game.

I am totally for it.

While I am straight myself, I know that love is love. No one can change that, not even prejudiced close-minded people like most of you. If someone loves someone else who is the same gender, then who are YOU to say it's wrong? What about you - you've probably felt love before. You can't help your feelings for other people.

Think about this: If your best friend told you he or she was gay, would you drop them just because they are gay or bi?

If you answered yes then you really are prejudiced and close-minded.

Not entirely; some children, raised by good heterosexual parents, choose to be gay to rebel against their parent's rule. It's the teenage thing.

However, if raised by a homosexual couple, the child will end up gay. The thing is, they'll be more unlikely to 'rebel' against their parents and turn to the straight, true, path. Mainly because homosexual couples are incapable of imposing authority on their children, so there is nothing for them to rebel against.

Can someone say "stereotype"?

Can someone say "stereotype"?Can someone say "satire" :p

When you think about this yes. I haven't read the studies about whether gay parents can adversely affect the children/are just as good parents but we've all been kids. How can you put the id through the years of bullying through being the kid with gay parents and therefore labelled "the/that gay kid"?

Well the onus is on the parents of those who would be bullies to teach them not to be so bigoted. Prejudices are ALWAYS handed down by the older generation. Homophobia like all phobias is a learned response.

In short, if people no longer see it as a "problem" then there won't be any bullying over it.

Can someone say "satire" :p

Sorry.

Hard to tell nowadays...

Thats the point of marriage on it's own, not a civil union.

What? :confused:

QFT.

QFT? Meaning?

*Okay Im done, but will stay for the show. Could I get some more popcorn? and because I live in Norway its okay for me to get beer at nineteen, so I will take one of those as well.

Thanks*

*hands over both*

Enjoy my friend.

Come on people this popcorn will not last forever people. Get your popcorn and beer here.

What? :confused:

One can get maried any way they please to whomever they want, but for the government to recognize it, thats a civil union.

Well the onus is on the parents of those who would be bullies to teach them not to be so bigoted. Prejudices are ALWAYS handed down by the older generation. Homophobia like all phobias is a learned response.

In short, if people no longer see it as a "problem" then there won't be any bullying over it.
Most bullying yes is learned but there seems to be something elemental about homophobia...doesn't make it right and in adults it can be overcome but in kids it seems to come right to the fore.
There's another threat as well...lesbian mothers i can see that woking but two feminists raising a child...STOP THE ADOPTION!!!

QFT? Meaning?

QFT=Quoted for Truth.

Can someone say "stereotype"?

No, it's true. Homosexuals are too limp-wristed, and too busy prancing about lisping at everyone. How could a child ever take anything they say seriously? Homosexual parents would be incapable of instilling discipline in a child.

Hm... does that mean that Cheney's lesbian daughter didn't intend to get pregnant?

Thats right. Clumsy bitch.

I can't be bothered to get into this debate again. When I was Zolworld I argued too much and got sick of it. So to sum up: Gay marriage good, Criik stupid.

Alright just a bit then: Since gays are allowed civil unions which give them essentially the same righta as a marriage, and even without those they could easily draw up papers giving their partners power of attorney etc, so why allow them to marry? Because its not the governments place to deny one group rights that are allowed another. Regardless of people's personal views on the subject, its also not one person's place to deny rights to another.

A good conservative (I imagine they exist somewhere) would realise this and stop bitching. Look at the bigger picture. By opposing gay marriage, or whatever other issue you dislike, you support the government denying rights to whole groups of people. Its all well and good when you agree with it, but what about when it starts to affect you? Its your own goddamn fault thats what.

There are many things individuals and groups do that piss us off, and we wish they would stop, and there are many things we do that piss others off. But equality and freedom are too important to sacrifice just so we can stop being pissed off.

*hands over both*

Enjoy my friend.

Come on people this popcorn will not last forever people. Get your popcorn and beer here.

Nineteen hah! Eighteen here: woot! Damm those Italians with a drinking age of 16! Dontchajusthatem?

One can get maried any way they please to whomever they want, but for the government to recognize it, thats a civil union.

So, wait, I get all the same rights as heterosexual married folk, only I just can't call it "marriage"? If that's the case, I have no trouble with that. But it had better include all 1,138 rights, privileges and benefits that the US General Accounting Office says comes with being "married."

Ok, cut the fundy act Nadkor. Your political compass scores in your sig tell me that this is all just a game.

Thanks for ruining my fun :rolleyes:

Thats right. Clumsy bitch. :p

One can get maried any way they please to whomever they want, but for the government to recognize it, thats a civil union.

Did you not get the "and share their assets" part?

So, wait, I get all the same rights as heterosexual married folk, only I just can't call it "marriage"? If that's the case, I have no trouble with that. But it had better include all 1,138 rights, privileges and benefits that the US General Accounting Office says comes with being "married."

but why should the state provide you with funds for your either non existent or un-stable family?

So, wait, I get all the same rights as heterosexual married folk, only I just can't call it "marriage"? If that's the case, I have no trouble with that. But it had better include all 1,138 rights, privileges and benefits that the US General Accounting Office says comes with being "married."

Correction: You can call it whatever the hell you want.

Last I heard, barring copyright issues, they can't enforce a law on what you can call an inanimate object or an abstract idea. So what happens is, the Fundies would be saying "It's not marriage, only we get marriage, it's a civil union!"

But you know what? You'd still be married, and you could still scrawl "Just Married" on the back of your car.

And I don't think anything would tick the bigots off more. :D

but why should the state provide you with funds for your either non existent or un-stable family?I don't know, what funding do the families of abusive or divorced parents receive nowadays?

Correction: You can call it whatever the hell you want.

Last I heard, barring copyright issues, they can't enforce a law on what you can call an inanimate object or an abstract idea. So what happens is, the Fundies would be saying "It's not marriage, only we get marriage, it's a civil union!"

But you know what? You'd still be married, and you could still scrawl "Just Married" on the back of your car.

And I don't think anything would tick the bigots off more. :D

No it's the other way round. I don't mind people calling what they want marriage and getting married from a rubishy church if they want to. However I do mind if they then force the governemnt to grant them a civil union, funding them in return for nothing.

but why should the state provide you with funds for your either non existent or un-stable family?

You talk as if the state is handing out cash. I pay taxes, more than quite a number of heterosexuals, so I expect equal treatment. Seems there was something about "no taxation without representation" back in the 18th century, you may have heard of that. So the "funds" are mine to begin with.

My family is non-existent only in your prejudiced imagination. We've been together for 23 years, longer than you've been alive, boy, and we're a good deal more stable than the one-out-of-every-two failed marriages that are the statistical norm in the US.

Here's a question for you: Will you stand up and say, "Gay people, by virtue of their sexual orientation, are not entitled to full citizen rights"? Nothing about being unnatural, unproductive, just say that because we are gay, for whatever reason, we are second-class citizens with fewer rights than straight people. That way I'll know where you stand.

but why should the state provide you with funds for your either non existent or un-stable family?

Okay, shit I need another beer, I spewed the last of this one all over the popcorn when I read this. He impressively ignores everything said involving logic or evidence related to stability of relationships. I am beginning to think that Criik has had everybody for a jolly good go simply for shits and giggles.

Correction: You can call it whatever the hell you want.

Last I heard, barring copyright issues, they can't enforce a law on what you can call an inanimate object or an abstract idea. So what happens is, the Fundies would be saying "It's not marriage, only we get marriage, it's a civil union!"

But you know what? You'd still be married, and you could still scrawl "Just Married" on the back of your car.

And I don't think anything would tick the bigots off more. :D

I like the way you think. :D

Okay, shit I need another beer, I spewed the last of this one all over the popcorn when I read this. He impressively ignores everything said involving logic or evidence related to stability of relationships. I am beginning to think that Criik has had everybody for a jolly good go simply for shits and giggles.

Actually, he and MTAE and various others have helped me sharpen my arguments, so it's not a total loss.

Hey is there any popcorn left? *Finds a nice seat and settles in.*

Come on people you can do better then this! Right now in terms of entertainment I rate this thread only 3/5 stars.

Then again, TRA hasn't shown up yet...

Hey is there any popcorn left? *Finds a nice seat and settles in.*

Come on people you can do better then this! Right now in terms of entertainment I rate this thread only 3/5 stars.

Then again, TRA hasn't shown up yet...

I think TRA got a Mod-sponsored vacation.

No it's the other way round. I don't mind people calling what they want marriage and getting married from a rubishy church if they want to. However I do mind if they then force the governemnt to grant them a civil union, funding them in return for nothing.Then why aren't you arguing in favor of not considering sterile partnerships for civil union status?

Are you for or against it?

Personally I am against it. Homosexuality is unnatural, going aginst humans instinctive urges to procreate to help forward the species.

Marriage is intended for procreation, gay marriage can never be consumated and goes against the intentions of marriage and there for it is not valid/

Your thoughts?

Unnatural? Obviously it is natural, seeing as people are homosexual and bisexual.

It doesn't go against the intentions of marriage. The intentions of marriage are to unite two people who love each other.

Second, would it hurt if two homosexual people got married? There aren't any consequences. Besides, gay couples cannot get all the benefits of marriage because of that law.

There's nothing evil or wrong about it. It's called love.

I think TRA got a Mod-sponsored vacation.
I hope so.

My family is non-existent only in your prejudiced imagination. We've been together for 23 years, longer than you've been alive, boy, and we're a good deal more stable than the one-out-of-every-two failed marriages that are the statistical norm in the US.


That number is total crap gotten by comparing this year's marriage rate with this year's divorce rate. So you are comparing how many people got married this year to how many people got divorced this year that were married since who knows when.
Considering this, the divorce rate is a lot less then 50%.

Then why aren't you arguing in favor of not considering sterile partnerships for civil union status?

I am against sterile civil unions, so long as it is known before hand and shown to be impossible.

That number is total crap gotten by comparing this year's marriage rate with this year's divorce rate. So you are comparing how many people got married this year to how many people got divorced this year that were married since who knows when.
Considering this, the divorce rate is a lot less then 50%.

Fine. I was only making a point about Criik saying my relationship is unstable. One occasionally gets heated in these so-called debates.

I am against sterile civil unions, so long as it is known before hand and shown to be impossible.

Answer my question: Will you stand up and say, "Gay people, by virtue of their sexual orientation, are not entitled to full citizen rights"?

Answer my question: Will you stand up and say, "Gay people, by virtue of their sexual orientation, are not entitled to full citizen rights"?

As I said before, they can have as many rights as they want. They do not need privilages.

As I said before, they can have as many rights as they want. They do not need privilages.

So in my civil union, I get everything a heterosexual married couple gets from the government, except the word? Or are you still denying me benefits paid for by my taxes? In which case, maybe I should get a tax reduction.

Edit: Actually, forget that, I think I know the answer. I'm unnatural and unstable and non-existent.

Oh, and "they" could be "you." You are speaking to me, as a person, right? Does it make you feel less intimidated to say "they"?

Nineteen hah! Eighteen here: woot! Damm those Italians with a drinking age of 16! Dontchajusthatem?

*hands over a popcorn and beer*

Popcorn and beer here. Get your popcorn and beer.

Are you for or against it?

Personally I am against it. Homosexuality is unnatural, going aginst humans instinctive urges to procreate to help forward the species.

Marriage is intended for procreation, gay marriage can never be consumated and goes against the intentions of marriage and there for it is not valid/

Your thoughts?

It exists in nature ... you fail at knowing what the word "natural" is

Now, I presume that Criik is talking about the USA.

Well, here's how Canada sees it (by and large).

Marriage is a right (or whatever Criik wants to call it). Now, if the government gives a right (or whatever blahblahblah) to a certain group of people, it has to extend it to every other group unless there is legitimate reason to not do so. Otherwise, it's betraying Section 15 of our Charter which states that everyone is equal in the eyes of the government no matter what gender, age, sexuality, ethnicity, et cetera they are. So, the argument that it's unnatural fails. Well, unless Criik is suggesting that since red-haired people, people of Hebrew ancestry, and left-handed people are all in the minority when compared to the rest of the world, that they be denied the ability to get married.

Now, we also have the Freedom of Religion bit. Meaning that churches are allowed to do basically whatever they want insofar as it doesn't harm society (duh). If it's against their religion, they don't have to marry a gay couple. However, 'religious people' aren't all Protestant. We have several Christian denominations and Buddhist sects which are willing to marry gay people. Therefore, the argument based on religion fails.

Long story short - the government dispenses the benefits of marriage. Either the government or churches can create a marriage. The churches have been given that privilege by the governments. If anything, churches should get out of the business of marriage as they have nothing to do with the dispensations of rights and apportioning of funds from the government.

I am against sterile civil unions, so long as it is known before hand and shown to be impossible.

There are a tone of old people that should be divorced by now then ...


Sorry grandpa, grandma cant have no kids anymore so you cant be married

So in my civil union, I get everything a heterosexual married couple gets from the government, except the word? Or are you still denying me benefits paid for by my taxes? In which case, maybe I should get a tax reduction.

Edit: Actually, forget that, I think I know the answer. I'm unnatural and unstable and non-existent.

Oh, and "they" could be "you." You are speaking to me, as a person, right? Does it make you feel less intimidated to say "they"?

I am refering to they as in the couple wanting to seek funding for the government, funding that will go to nothing.

Marriage is for procreation? So my parents marriage is invalid then because they adopted me and my brother instead of having two of their own? (Which isn't true - I'm as much theirs as one they made themselves.)

Interesting...

There are a tone of old people that should be divorced by now then ...


Sorry grandpa, grandma cant have no kids anymore so you cant be married

No because they are already married, the contract is legal and cannot be broken. They have also succeeded in fulfilling that contract.

They have also succeeded in fulfilling that contract.

The only portion of the contract of marriage actually relating to sex is that it be consummated. And trust me, gay people are just as capable as straight people at consummating a marriage.

No because they are already married, the contract is legal and cannot be broken. They have also succeeded in fulfilling that contract.

Why is the contract not setup to terminate after they are found to not be able to bear child nor are supporting children anymore?

If your argument is based on the funds being put where most useful why do you condone this wastage?

Criik - You're a jerk and a bully. Plain and simple.

Anyway Marriage is a RIGHT not a PRIVILEGE. Marriage was never solely Christian to begin with. Marriage has existed in some form or another since before the first civilizations began over 5000 years ago. Pagans, Mono-theists, Atheists, Agonistics, Buddhists...regardless of your beliefs or religion, every religion has had marriage, and their own ceremonies. Nowadays, people prefer doing their own kind of ceremonies, or ceremonies based on familial/religious traditions. Germans, for example, have a very interesting tradition concerning marriage. It's a tradition not found in the US, and is a tradition that I would like to use when I get married to my boyfriend (yes, I am gay), since it's something my parents did, and something my grandparents did, when they all got married.

My point is, Christians, conservative or otherwise, have no right to tell a group of people they can't get married simply because they live a different lifestyle than they do.

Criik - Marriage is about LOVE, not sex. Sex used to be the prize at the end of the rainbow, but now, sex is just the passion shared between two people. Sure, for heterosexuals, it often times leads to procreation. But, dude, there are 6 billion people in this world, with thousands being born every day. The human race is in no danger of dying out any time soon. Furthermore, estimates point to the population doubling to 12 billion by 2050. The earth is said to be able to support a human population of 14 billion. Considering that there's not enough food or medicine to go around now, when we're only at 6 billion, imagine how bad it will be in 44 years from now. Homosexuality is natural, as it is nature's way of controlling an animal population. Yes, like it or not, human beings are animals. We're mammals, just like most terrestrial animals and a few marine animals. We're busy trying to control the animal populations, so who's controlling ours? Nature. So, homosexuality is not "unnatural", though I might agree with you that it's a genetic mutation (not defect). There are no real "genetic defects". I know, because I'm a biologist, and I've studied genetics. Genetic mutations occur during extreme stresses in the environment of an animal. It's how creatures have evolved on earth. Considering that we're stressing the planet right now with overpopulation and pollution, it's no wonder that homosexuals are popping up like crazy.

What's unnatural, is trying to force people to live their lives the way YOU want them to. And don't sit there and say that's not what you're doing, because it is. You want gay people to be "normal" like you Criik, to procreate like you (God forbid you find someone desparate enough to sleep with you), and to be good little heteros. Well, screw that. Life would be boring if everyone lived the same way. Diversity is what makes a culture grow, it's what makes society acceptable, and makes society a bit more "natural".

As for the "funding to nothing" crap...gays pay taxes too. Some even pay twice in taxes because the Federal Government doesn't recognize their union. So, I would think that gays have a right to say what happens with their money. If you want to talk about funding that's going nowhere, how about talking about the Iraqi conflict. Now THERE's a waste of resources right there. Or how about Bush trying to colonize the moon and Mars in the next 15 years, rather than dealing with the immediate problems of the world such as disease and food issues, or trying to get money into the social security program so that future generations have social security too? That's a major waste of funds as well. So, how can giving gay married couples the same rights and priviledges my parents enjoy in their marriage, be a waste of money? If anything, gays would be getting back some of the money they overpaid in taxes that way.

Criik - do the forums a favor and pull your lip over your head and swallow. We don't need people like you around.

And, I want to thank everyone else who supports same-sex marriage, even those that have been sarcastic the whole time. It's nice to know that more and more people are supporting equal rights.

Criik - I do have one question for you, How does it feel to be part of a dying breed of animal?

No because they are already married, the contract is legal and cannot be broken. They have also succeeded in fulfilling that contract.

The contract can have any stipulations on creation that it wants INCLUDING a time out or conditional clause

There is no reason TODAY that new marriages could not be forced to have thoes clauses in them to be accepted by the state

Well I will say that I am not against it but I am not totally for it. People say that it is unnatural but some people truely can't help being gay. There have been studies that prove that yes some people are born gay and that they can not change the way they feel toward the same sex and if they can't change it why punish them by telling them that they can't get married.

Thats the point of marriage on it's own, not a civil union.

I would sig this, but I have no more room.