PDA

View Full Version : Are you For or Against Gay Marriage?


Pages : [1] 2

marz
June 13th, 2007, 06:10 PM
Are you for or against gay marriage? Why?

I'm fine with it. I've got no right to tell someone they can't marry anyone they want, it's their sexual orientation and I have to respect that. I don't care if the bible, or the law or whatnot defines marriage as the bond between a man and a woman, because due to our discovery that people have sexual orientations, whether you're heterosexual, bi-sexual, or homosexual, it probably should be changed to "the bond between two human beings."

So, what are your views on gay marriage?

Warheart
June 13th, 2007, 06:20 PM
Dude, I just don't care..I mean literally, don't care...

If two people love eachother, I won't judge them, as I have no right to be telling people what they should do with their lives. I mean, I'm not gay, and I don't understand it, but it doesn't bother me.

So I just said "Undecided"

R.A.M.
June 14th, 2007, 02:02 AM
Well...one of my best friends is gay so I must say I'm OK with the gay marriage.

Dragon Dude
June 14th, 2007, 02:25 AM
for it theres nothing wrong with it people who say it's wrong are afraid people will think they're gay if they think gay marriage is ok and thats just dumb

Fox♠
June 14th, 2007, 02:33 AM
I really see no problem with gay marriage, heck, it;s thier decission if they want to marry, then let them.

~*!*~Tatsujin Gosuto~*!*~
June 14th, 2007, 03:25 AM
I'm for because it doesn't matter what sex you are either being male and female, or male and male or female and female. AS long as you love each other thats all that matters


:t354:tatsujin gosuto

Train Heartnet
June 14th, 2007, 03:43 AM
well, i said undecided, cause gay marriage doesn't make any sense to me, but well, as the others have said already, it's their decision, if they want to, then let them! i don't have any right to interfere...so undecided is the one i checked...

_Prince_
June 14th, 2007, 04:50 AM
Hmm, I don't take, it's not my problem. If two people want a gay marriage then so be it.

Richard Lynch
June 14th, 2007, 06:01 AM
I'm personally for it, however "marriage" can only be performed in a Church, and Churches are private institutions funded by the community, so in a sense the Church does have some right to say who can and can't be married in their Church.

Although, Churches don't get taxed at all (not even land tax), and this is a political debate, so I say if the Church wants to have a say in politics, tax them! Let them pay the entrance fee like everyone else.

Besides that... how could you be against it? There are people no only against gay marriage, but gay civil union too (ie, many of those same Churches and devout fundamentalists)! An event that takes place in a court of law, something meant to be fair and unbiased. Being a science guy myself, and an atheist, I don't understand (I mean, I literally can not comprehend) how someone could be against two people falling in love, no matter what the circumstances.

Lucy Lu
June 14th, 2007, 07:50 AM
I am for gay marriage. See, if two people of the same sex love each other they should get married. And they should be treated like if a man and woman get married. Like get all those benefits. But it is hard. I don't judge them at all.

Lily
June 14th, 2007, 08:11 AM
I'm not against it, but I don't exactly support it, either.

Lt. Surge's Raichu
June 14th, 2007, 08:30 AM
That's just ok with me.
If they love eachother and want to marry i don't see the problem.

Alter Ego
June 14th, 2007, 08:32 AM
For it. As long as it's between consenting adults then people are allowed to fall in love with and marry anyone they please as far as I'm concerned. Amen to what Richard Steel said; forbidding things within your own church is one thing (Although I agree that they should forfeit the free benefits they leech from society if they chose to do so) but interfering with the personal lives of people who don't care about getting the church's consent is just inexcusable. I find it rather ironic that people who claim to promote tolerance can be so biggotted, but then again; I've never really understood religion either.

Frostweaver
June 14th, 2007, 08:32 AM
I'm for gay marriages, as long as it's the government doing the marriages and not necessarily by the church. The church should be allowed to decide if they allow it or not by themselves.

I'm personally against it (greatly) since I'm one of those old, conservative Christian prick, but I like to keep government separate from religion.

(as for the tolerance thing, I'm not going to even go to explain that in a forum XD; But let's say, we're tolerant by being intolerant, and that will not make sense to non-believers at all I'm sure =x)

Ben Kenobi
June 14th, 2007, 09:01 AM
I'm mostly indifferent. I know of no one who's gay or anything, so I can't really make a proper judgement either way.

Krafty Quill
June 14th, 2007, 09:39 AM
Gay ish affects me no more than the sight of my two male dogs trying to hump each other. What do I do about it? Nothing, just let them go on and be about their business. Why should I care if two random men on the other side of the planet are tongue wrestling, or sticking poles in each other's golf holes, or massaging each other's potato sacks? I'm not comfortable watching that sort of thing, but it's all good. I have the right to prefer melons, and I do, but I'm not going to tell someone else they can't enjoy bananas.

Drifblim
June 14th, 2007, 09:44 AM
As Richard Steel said, marriage has always been sacrosanct and it's rather difficult to change that. If this weren't true, I would be all for gay marriage, but until then, I would just suggest such equality in legal terms, for example a civil union. Given the choice I would allow gay marriage, but ultimately I believe such a term is reserved as far as the individual community is concerned.

Careful With That Axe, Pichu!
June 14th, 2007, 09:53 AM
I'm fine with it, but I don't exactly support it either. Talk about copying Lily.

I don't even seem to care about what the church may state against it, but I believe homosexual legal union should be tolerated civilly.

41victory
June 14th, 2007, 10:03 AM
Well im fine with it... whatever they do in their personal lives is none of my business.

Shiny Umbreon
June 14th, 2007, 02:59 PM
I'm not against gay marriage, but I don't know about gay couples adopting kids, because they would be confused if growing with two dads, and everyone would joke about them.

Kyoko
June 14th, 2007, 03:07 PM
^ Not everyone would make fun of someone who had two dads or two moms. Plus, they would understand eventually why they do have that set of parents.

I am for gay marriage, I think you should be able to marry who you love and care for. I mean it's love, and there's nothing wrong with that.

22sa
June 14th, 2007, 04:10 PM
I voted against because I don't like what it's making marriage come to mean... feels like trivialfication... however I would in actuality advise it to a couple of the same sex for the sake of whatever benefits legal marriage brings to them. It's still a worthy goal for gay people, so I'm 'for' it.

Allstories
June 14th, 2007, 04:29 PM
I am in favor of allowing gay marriages. It disgusts me that people accuse it of diluting the concept of marriage as if it weren't already under attack by skyrocketing divorce rates and retarded celebrities doing it for fun.

Đ a r κ
June 14th, 2007, 04:39 PM
For it. Seriously, the marriage of the same sex doesn't affect your marriage so why mess theirs up if they really feel strongly for each other. Besides they should bann divorce [Quote: Wanda] Once your in you can't get out. It may cause more death rates but hey.

22sa
June 14th, 2007, 04:39 PM
I am in favor of allowing gay marriages. It disgusts me that people accuse it of diluting the concept of marriage as if it weren't already under attack by skyrocketing divorce rates and retarded celebrities doing it for fun.
lol That was a very funny point XDD;

You shouldn't say it like divorce rates, retarded celebrities (I don't think they're necessarily retarded, they might be doing it for populairity & money), and gays getting married are the same issues, though. :P

The two points you mentioned are scorned because of infidelity & unhappiness, but that's totally not what anti gay marriage is about.

Tapioca
June 14th, 2007, 04:44 PM
WOW this thred is popular. Well, seeing as how I don't care cause I'm well straight, I put undecided. As long as they stay away from me, they can do whatever it is that they do.

Rai
June 14th, 2007, 04:57 PM
I am strongly support gay marriage. I believe that you should marry whoever the heck you want! It's your decision. Besides, loves goes way past gender... It's the personality of the person that matters.

And I am not exactly the straightest person in the world so yeah X3;

Virtual Headache
June 14th, 2007, 05:39 PM
I'm for it.
As long as both partners are in love with each other, they should be allowed to marry, no matter what their genders are.

Cherrim
June 14th, 2007, 06:12 PM
I support it 100%. I can understand why churches would be very reluctant to sanctify it officially under their religion, but I see no reason for any decent government to withhold a marriage license for a same-sex couple. They should have the same rights as heterosexual couples, I believe.

Drifblim
June 14th, 2007, 06:41 PM
I think I should clarify myself here.

I think the government should not deny a licence of any sort to couples just because they're gay. However, just to settle with institutions such as the church, marriage shouldn't even be a legal term.

Akio123
June 14th, 2007, 07:33 PM
If two people love each other, regardless of Gender they should be able to marry.

Suki
June 15th, 2007, 10:22 AM
I'm okay with gay marriage. And like what most people said, if they love eachother then there is no problem.

Jaguarsfan2004
June 15th, 2007, 02:56 PM
i'm not going to comment on it i love everybody

Timbjerr
June 15th, 2007, 10:01 PM
Meh...the word 'marriage' is suggestive of the religious sacrament. No valid religion in the world would allow a same-sex marriage. The term that people should be debating with is 'civil union', which is suggestive of a legal binding without any ceremony. Gay people can get as many civil unions as they want. I don't really care.

This does beg the question though...why would people get married anymore? Society is so flakked up that marriage is meaningless nowadays. What's the point of being married when the divorce rate is astronomical and the average person has more than 10 sexual partners in their lifetime?

Happy Dude
June 18th, 2007, 06:52 PM
Im Against it Sorry :)

I has my Reasons but i won't go Into them

Samurai X
June 18th, 2007, 07:21 PM
I am for gay marriage, that's all there really is to say for me. I don't really care about it actually. For me it's more like, "Let them do whatever the hell they want".

mostwanted
June 19th, 2007, 05:03 PM
Against gay marriage for males
For females :D thats another question lol

Rai
June 19th, 2007, 05:56 PM
Against gay marriage for males
For females :D thats another question lol

I'm sorry but that was extremely chauvinistic =\ You should support both genders; not just females because you think yuri is hot. Whatever, I am not trying to argue. That is just my opinion.

kohei
June 20th, 2007, 08:25 AM
Against gay marriage for males
For females :D thats another question lol
Aye, you just said my point!

In the end, who cares about the whole argument behind gender equality when you can stare at two girls getting married/kissing/*YAY*?

...I'm not sure if I am being sarcastic here.


But hey, it's a 17 year-old male thing.

TwilightBlade
June 20th, 2007, 09:42 AM
I'm against it. Don't really know why and don't really care... I don't really think humans should be that free and be able to marry whoever you want. There should be some easy rules to follow. Otherwise in the next few years, my dog is gonna be married to a human and that'll make me sad. D8

HellRaiser
June 20th, 2007, 10:29 AM
gay marriage?
hmmm
i dont think God would like that so i voted no ...
there's probably a reason y he created a woman n a man ...
hmmm
but on the other hand i dont believe in God lol ... (i dont believe in anything, only myself so dont think i'ma heretic or somethin like that lol)

like i said my vote went for 'nope'

Allstories
June 20th, 2007, 11:08 AM
I'm against it. Don't really know why and don't really care... I don't really think humans should be that free and be able to marry whoever you want. There should be some easy rules to follow. Otherwise in the next few years, my dog is gonna be married to a human and that'll make me sad. D8

You're honestly comparing the marriage of two consenting human beings to the marriage of a human and a dog? Ugh.

Besides, humans invented marriage, so as long as it's not infringing on the rights of others, why can't they do what they want?

Legacy
June 20th, 2007, 11:46 AM
You're honestly comparing the marriage of two consenting human beings to the marriage of a human and a dog? Ugh.

Besides, humans invented marriage, so as long as it's not infringing on the rights of others, why can't they do what they want?
Exactly.

If two people are capable of falling in love and want to spend their lives together, regardless of the sexual preference, then why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?

Marriage doesn't have the same meaning in this day and age anyway. It's just something to do for a lot of couples, an excuse to have a celebration, then six months later they're filing for divorce. Heterosexual couples have disgraced marriage completely. At least most homosexual couples still recognise what marriage used to mean.

So if you look at it that way, homoseual couples deserve to have the right to marry more than heterosexual couples.

Rivvon
June 20th, 2007, 12:21 PM
Marriage doesn't have the same meaning in this day and age anyway. It's just something to do for a lot of couples, an excuse to have a celebration, then six months later they're filing for divorce. Heterosexual couples have disgraced marriage completely. At least most homosexual couples still recognise what marriage used to mean.

So if you look at it that way, homoseual couples deserve to have the right to marry more than heterosexual couples.
Yeah, you're right. That's pretty much how it is nowaddays.

I'm all for it. As long as they're truly in love, they should be able to get married. I can see the government's worry: if everyone becomes gay, the human race might die out >.>; But that's a bit too much...

Legacy
June 20th, 2007, 12:26 PM
Yeah, you're right. That's pretty much how it is nowaddays.

I'm all for it. As long as they're truly in love, they should be able to get married. I can see the government's worry: if everyone becomes gay, the human race might die out >.>; But that's a bit too much...
Sexual preference isn't a choice, though, it's something you can't decide. And allowing gay marriage won't suddenly make everyone "become gay."

Rivvon
June 20th, 2007, 12:29 PM
Sexual preference isn't a choice, though, it's something you can't decide. And allowing gay marriage won't suddenly make everyone "become gay."
Exactly. But apparently, the government thinks too many people will marry the same sex if they allowed gay marriage. I'm not saying I think that, 'cause, well, everyone "becoming" gay is, like, never going to happen.

Red1530
June 20th, 2007, 06:32 PM
I am against of Gay marriage. However I am for Civil Unions where the gay couple has the same rights as a married heterosexual couple.

Allstories
June 20th, 2007, 07:14 PM
Yeah, you're right. That's pretty much how it is nowaddays.

I'm all for it. As long as they're truly in love, they should be able to get married. I can see the government's worry: if everyone becomes gay, the human race might die out >.>; But that's a bit too much...

I'm pretty sure homosexuality isn't some 20th century innovation. Look at ancient Greece.

Captain Arcane
June 20th, 2007, 08:46 PM
I have nothing against gay mariage, its America, I could literly care less if women married other women and men married other men.

NintendoJoe
June 21st, 2007, 01:26 AM
im not agensit gay marrige is both chicks are hot ;)

M3T4GR0SS
June 21st, 2007, 04:30 AM
I'm totally in for it, its just the (stupid) Church that is preventing gay couples of getting married.
Gayness is natural.
what about 2 male dogs *F-word*ing eachother?

Allstories
June 21st, 2007, 06:36 AM
Gay marriage is just plain stupid.
Why the hell would anyone want to?
The less gays in the world the better!

I suggest you delve deeper into understanding issues like this if you plan on ever becoming an accepted member of society, kiddo. No one likes a callous nazi.

Mr.Altosax
June 21st, 2007, 07:00 AM
I support it.

1. I believe that sexual orientation isn't a choice.

2. Love is not bound by gender, race, age, or religion. Saying that two men cannot love each other is like saying that a black man and a white woman can't be together. Besides, usually gay couples love each other a lot more than straight couples do...just look at the divorce rates.

healberry
June 21st, 2007, 01:46 PM
I remember reading an article saying that sexual orientation is defined genetically and in fact scientists managed to make lesbian fruit flies simply by switching one gene.

I'm not gay, but I'm just throwing that out there for people to think about. If anyone wants to link to that article, I think I can find it. I tagged undecided in the poll, because I don't understand gay marriage at all. In fact, I barely understand regular marriage. XD

Linoone
June 21st, 2007, 01:52 PM
I'm for it, not just cause I'm gay but cause I think marriage should be for love, cause really, what's the difference between a man and a woman?, physical traits, voice, and that's preety much it
*looks at hungry homer's post* thanks, I was about to point out that the typical thread idiot hadn't showed up yet buut you solved the problem, give him a medal people

goiterboy
June 22nd, 2007, 02:08 AM
I wa just saying what i thought was right just because you people are differently minded then me, you had no reason to say what you did.

Forest Grovyle
June 22nd, 2007, 02:16 AM
Yes, but there are ways of expressing it. There is no need to use such insulting phrases as "The less gays in the world the better" - this is deliberately offensive and borders on flaming. If you have an opinion, it's fine to express it, but you have to keep in mind how it will appear to other people.

Linoone, please don't fuel the fire by using the word "idiot" - if you see a post that needs reporting, please press the report button instead. Thanks :)

Hungry Homer, I suggest you rethink your wording in future. Now let's get back on topic.

--FG

Vavavoom ♣
June 22nd, 2007, 03:39 AM
well, i said undecided, cause gay marriage doesn't make any sense to me, but well, as the others have said already, it's their decision, if they want to, then let them! i don't have any right to interfere...so undecided is the one i checked...


I totally agree with you.

Timbjerr
June 22nd, 2007, 08:19 AM
I'm totally in for it, its just the (stupid) Church that is preventing gay couples of getting married.
Gayness is natural.
what about 2 male dogs *F-word*ing eachother?

Tell me, out of pure curiosity, at what point in time did you get it ingrained in your mind that the Church is inherently idiotic? Methinks the religious side of this issue is often misconstrued or misinterpreted. People tend to get the idea that the Christian God has predetermined that every gay person will go to Hell.

Of course homosexuality is a natural anomaly in the human populace, no one but the radical right denies that. Christianity teaches to accept and love all people. The laws of Leviticus say that homosexual encounters are an abomination of God...not simply being a homosexual.

To put it simply, God loves gay people, but he doesn't approve of...you know...gay sex...>_>

This is why I support civil unions, but not religious marriages.

Linoone
June 24th, 2007, 06:57 AM
I wa just saying what i thought was right just because you people are differently minded then me, you had no reason to say what you did.
you insulted, I insulted back, I don't have a problem with your views, you can be against it, it's perfectly fine, but you know what they say, violence generates violence, and thanks FG, will do

and for the topic, yeah, religious controversy has been the most important, but as a gay, and a god beleiver I find many religious ideas to have little or no logic, that's why I completely ignore what the church says and prefer to listen to what my heart says, after allit's not like I can stop being gay, that's like saying "hey, I'm gonna start breathing with my eyes!!" not that I want to change anyway

Cross
June 24th, 2007, 11:44 AM
I'm not for gay marriage. I'm not even for gay people. It's really creepy when your out somewhere, and this guy of the same sex starts looking at you a whole bunch. ughuhu. x(
I do mind it, but it's their choice and I can't do a thing about it.

G-Klav
June 29th, 2007, 02:32 PM
Well, if two people want to marry, let them, sexual preferences shouldn't be an obstacle.

goofy_charizard_girl
July 2nd, 2007, 09:24 AM
I am for gay marrige. I don't see any reason why two ppl shouldn't get married if they love eachother even if they are two women or two men. It is their decision after all.

Merzbau
July 2nd, 2007, 11:50 AM
This fag is all for marriage to anyone he wants to marry.

I didn't choose it, why should someone I don't even know tell me that I chose it and should choose differently, and not allow me to be with someone I love just because they're not for the idea?

The President's administration, with his Federal Marriage Amendment, need to look at our Constitution.

You know, something about the "separation of church and state".

RoyxLilina4ever
July 5th, 2007, 02:00 PM
I'm for it.

I see marriage as a bond between two that love each other dearly.

Sakurah
July 5th, 2007, 02:05 PM
I vote for, because love has nothing to do with the gender, race, or age you are. If you love someone, then you love someone. Plus, I hate how certain people [Note how I said certain, not all] say that gay people's marriage is a disgrace. Hello! There's a lot of straight people who makes weddings look just as bad. Saying no [Once again, what I think] to gay marriage is a kind of new form of racism. Because you're hating a certain group of people.

But that's just me.

Jubilation
July 5th, 2007, 11:30 PM
Well I'm for it as I'm gay ^^ hence my username =P

Tr@ce
July 6th, 2007, 11:33 AM
...Not for it or against it...
I mean, I'm not "oooo gays gays gays! Let's go! ooooo!" , but I don't hate them.

Rad_Riardos
July 6th, 2007, 11:36 AM
I'm against gays all together. I shudder just by the thought...

Weatherman, Kiyoshi
July 6th, 2007, 11:45 AM
I don't really care what the people do.
(As long if it's not my problem)

I know some people are aganist it and some people are totally for it, and some people are like "Um... your asking me?".

As for me, I'm one of those "Um, your asking me?" people. athough, some of those people who are against it get annoying about thier bashing. God people, just accept the fact that some people are gay so I don't have to hear more about your usless attempts! sheesh...

But if I HAD to pick, I would support it.
One of my 2 top two friends, It's PAINFULLY obvious that he going to be gay.
I would support it, Because I don't want to dis my friend.

The only reason why i'm Undecided is because gays used to scare me when I was little. Now, I see they barely getting any rights, I have to think...

I'm straight personally, if anyone asks.

diamondpearl876
July 6th, 2007, 01:31 PM
I just saw a site about someone being beaten to death for being gay. ;\ That's really pathetic, and it's sad to see what some humans do to each other.

Anyway, I'm for it. I agree with whoever said their bashing against it gets annoying. I hear at least one stupid joke about gay people every day.

Bonkenhi
July 6th, 2007, 01:49 PM
I don't care. They can if they want.

Rebellious Treecko
July 6th, 2007, 01:54 PM
I'm against gays all together. I shudder just by the thought...

It makes me sad how so many people can't accept the fact that there are other people that are different from us.

I may not think that "gay" marrage is the way God intended, but I'm defenetly not homophobic!

Jubilation
July 7th, 2007, 07:36 AM
I'm against gays all together. I shudder just by the thought...

Just a question what did gays ever do to you?

Rai
July 7th, 2007, 08:34 AM
I can understand if some people feel a little weird about the topic... but there is no reason to be completely against gays =\

A few years ago I used to not understand gay people that much... and then I recently realized that I'm gay! It's something no one can control; it's natural.

Vavavoom ♣
July 7th, 2007, 08:37 AM
I'm not against Gay Marriage. However, it doesn't make any sense 2 persons with the same gender (Called Gay or Lesbien) getting married.

legends
July 7th, 2007, 08:40 AM
uhhh, if you want the truth I dont care :)

Rad_Riardos
July 7th, 2007, 08:42 AM
You don't wanna know...

Yes, it was THAT bad.

Weatherman, Kiyoshi
July 7th, 2007, 09:00 AM
You don't wanna know...

Yes, it was THAT bad.

This is why is labeled bashers "Annoying"
You say it was THAT bad without giving us any good reason.

please tell us, WHAT?
the public wants to know *Gives microphone*

Natti
July 7th, 2007, 12:03 PM
I'm okay with it. If it happens, that's fine with me. If not, that's too bad.

Allstories
July 7th, 2007, 12:50 PM
I'm not against Gay Marriage. However, it doesn't make any sense 2 persons with the same gender (Called Gay or Lesbien) getting married.

I have no idea what you are saying in this sentence.

Vavavoom ♣
July 8th, 2007, 03:48 PM
I have no idea what you are saying in this sentence.

Lolz...

Just a Male + Male or a Female + Female getting married makes so sense to me.

peabobo's sexy legs
July 8th, 2007, 04:03 PM
Gay people can be gay together but I feel they should keep it to themselves.

Seremiya
July 8th, 2007, 05:13 PM
I'm not against it, and I don't think it would be fair to tell someone who they can and can't spend the rest of their lives with.

Merzbau
July 8th, 2007, 06:37 PM
Gay people can be gay together but I feel they should keep it to themselves.

Not in anger or anything, mate, just stating a counterpoint here.

But...

If we're supposed to have equal rights as citizens of this country, and you can express yourself as you want with your heterosexual partner, then why should it be different if I'm with a man?

Vanilla Kitsune
July 8th, 2007, 06:48 PM
I support gay rights. :3 That's all I got to say.

People deserve rights no matter what their sexuality be. Gay people are just like you and I, and deserve to be treated as normal, human beings.

Vavavoom ♣
July 8th, 2007, 06:58 PM
Gay people can be gay together but I feel they should keep it to themselves.

I Agree. ^.^ No need to make some parades.

Astinus
July 9th, 2007, 01:45 PM
But they have parades to show that no matter what society says, "they're here, they're queer", and nothing is going to change that. It's a matter of pride for them to show that they aren't afraid of who they are. They don't have parades for "straight" people because society says that that is the norm.

I'm for gay marriage. Love doesn't hold no stipulations. It doesn't matter the age, the race, or the gender. Just as long as two people love one another, then they should be together.

Maybe I just feel more personal to this issue, as I have many friends who are gay.

Of course, I don't understand why gay people have to keep their relationship hidden. I don't like straight couples making "kissy faces" at one another, but what can I do? D:

Besides, we're all human, no matter what, and we all deserve to be treated with respect.

Cross
July 10th, 2007, 01:44 AM
Something that just amazes me is the fact that in the olden days, you'd be stoned (even to death) if you were gay, and nowadays we have little pink butterfly wussies going around defending gay MARRIAGE.

Ichigo Roza Mystica
July 10th, 2007, 02:12 AM
In the "Old Days" people doctors treated "hysteria", which was apparently a "womens' affliction", by molesting her with a phallus.
Does that make it right?

Corona
July 10th, 2007, 04:36 AM
I am not against it. Due to the fact that im Bisexual and I lean to males. To me the bible shouldnt have a say in Gay Marriage or any form of Marriage what so ever. It says children who swear with parents shall be stoned. Do we do that ? Thank god we dont. But do you see my point? Things have changed in the last couple thoasand years. Now what I do think is wrong is for Gay People to walk down a populated street making out. I for one think its hot O_O but most people who are hetero will get disguisted. Because most people are in some way (I cant think of any other word than Racist but thats not the word im looking for) against Gays and I can understand. As for me no one makes fun of me because im Bi. Everone knows no body cares. And im 14 ^_^. Also being gay or bi do give you certain Legal Rights and some well not rights like marriage >.<. I dropped kicked my princible in the nads when he expelled me for kissing my boyfriend. My mom sued him, he got fired (and now cant have kids), I got unexpelled but then suspended for drop kicking my princible in the nuts XD. But I do feel kinda bad about it. We are a minority. And if we have to drop kick someone in the nuts for our Pride we will do it XD

Allstories
July 10th, 2007, 06:01 AM
Something that just amazes me is the fact that in the olden days, you'd be stoned (even to death) if you were gay, and nowadays we have little pink butterfly wussies going around defending gay MARRIAGE.

In all my years at PC, this may be among the most despicable things I have ever read on this message board. Tell me you're not serious.

Craig²
July 12th, 2007, 09:52 PM
I don't see how it's a problem. They love each other, and that's all that really matters, IMO. So, I guess that means I'm for it. I see absolutely no negative impact it could have on communities.

Jaimes
July 13th, 2007, 01:01 AM
Something that just amazes me is the fact that in the olden days, you'd be stoned (even to death) if you were gay, and nowadays we have little pink butterfly wussies going around defending gay MARRIAGE.


Good olden days... In where? Philestine? :\
Also when you could have as many wives as you want, When we had to stay in on Sundays or get stoned, When eating food could get you stoned, When leaving home as a child could get you stoned, When having a partner before marriage could get you stoned, When pre adolescents were in arranged marriages, When children would be sold into slavery, When we could prove innocence in a fight to the death, When a sensible law was out of place?
Yes it truly is amazing how less civilised humanity as become with age!

Homosexuality is a way of life, like having a different skin colour. If you can't accept people for this, then there is clearly something wrong with you.

Anyway I am against Gay 'marriage' since the term in this entire thread is used incorrectly. A dictionary definition is: "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc." Marriage states between a male and female. To have a marriage between same sex does break a long legal definition.
In England we have 'Civil Partnerships' which is "marriage for same sex". This is a great alternative. Since it has exactly the same ideas including sharing legal rights and so forth. So I'm quite supportive of this idea.

So I selected undecided - theres nothing wrong with a same sex unison, but the thread term is incorrect. :)

The Real AAA
July 13th, 2007, 01:28 AM
I'm Against gay marriage!And I don't want to cause any trouble becuase I'm saying it straight up, the world wasn't meant for 2 males to fall in love with each other, it was meant for a Male and a Female to fall in love

Shinji_
July 13th, 2007, 06:11 AM
I'm against it 100%. I don't agree with it at all and being a Christian it's obvious that I wouldnt agree, I dont wanna get all religious but God Made Adam a Guy and Eve a Girl in the beginning for a reason so that people would realize that a guy is supposed to marry a girl not the same sex thats not right.

PokemonSquirtle
July 13th, 2007, 02:36 PM
I'm for Gay marriage. Love is Love! God wanted Love in the World, so Gay Marriage being illegal would be against God's wishes.

(Sorry, I sound like a right Jerk here but its kinda true...)

Chompah :x
July 13th, 2007, 02:41 PM
People should be able to do what they want.
I guess.

Weatherman, Kiyoshi
July 13th, 2007, 03:16 PM
Something that just amazes me is the fact that in the olden days, you'd be stoned (even to death) if you were gay, and nowadays we have little pink butterfly wussies going around defending gay MARRIAGE.

Wow.

That's all I have to say.

Wow.


That is this most Anti-Gay thing I have ever read.
Heatran, you are a true-blue Gay hater.
That's all I have to say.

Apathetic_Yen
July 13th, 2007, 07:45 PM
I'm for Gay marriage. Love is Love! God wanted Love in the World, so Gay Marriage being illegal would be against God's wishes.

(Sorry, I sound like a right Jerk here but its kinda true...)

Uhhh do you even believe in God, because what you just said right now, goes against what he wants in his world (Yes I'm a Christian and proud of it).

And Joyride, it does state in the Bible about gay marriage and the reasons it's wrong, hence why we have men and women.

Aye, I was afraid there'd be a thread like this. Best way to get people to wanna grab each other's throats and beat each other.

Cross
July 13th, 2007, 07:51 PM
For those who took their time to "compliment" on my opinion:

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u238/Yutss/D.jpg



Besides, most of you refuse to give a real good reason the post is offensive besides the fact that I gave a little history lesson.

And if I'm such a gay hater, how come no one seems to be protesting against Shinji or anyone else and saying "That is the most despicable post evur"?

And Jwilso, refresh me on when I said "Good" olden days.

Jaimes
July 14th, 2007, 02:11 AM
Besides, most of you refuse to give a real good reason the post is offensive besides the fact that I gave a little history lesson.


What sort of history lesson was that? And yes, it was offensive. I'll just remind your kiddie brain what you typed:

Something that just amazes me is the fact that in the olden days, you'd be stoned (even to death) if you were gay, and nowadays we have little pink butterfly wussies going around defending gay MARRIAGE.
It 'amazes me' that gay people would be stoned and now people defend homosexuality? Well obviously that shows your views on the comparison, so stoning people to death is better than others accepting somebody else’s way of life? Your post clearly implies that 'olden days' of throwing rocks is better.
That is over 10% of the worldwide population. Seems like a lot of stones to throw to me.

And also 'little pink butterfly wussies'... bashing people because of their views is pathetic, that’s not even a good insult. Because someone has outspoken opinions doesn’t mean that they’re a wimp, quite the opposite actually. Associating people who defend homosexuality with 'pink buttefly wussies' also reflects how stupid you must be. Maybe it's something you learnt from the playground or something.

Also, Shinji_ and others comments weren't offensive. They did not attack other peoples views unfairly, but explained their reasons by stating their opinions, often based on some sort of religious viewpoint.

Also a random point, if you’re homophobic on the outside, then its more likely that you have homosexual feelings. Homophobia shows that the individual is unable accept other peoples ways of life caused by stigmatism of modern day society, so intends to hide their own beliefs by acting the polar opposite.

I'm not gay at all, but I'm not idiotic enough to criticise or discriminate millions of people because I cant accept their way of life.

Zazzeh
July 14th, 2007, 03:50 AM
I'm all for it. I see nothing wrong with two people loving eachother. Though when you think about it..it is a little strange. Kinda makes me think.. like Sasuke + Sakura is fine, Naruto + Hinata is fine..But what about Kakashi + Iruka? Or Sasori + Deidara? The whole concept of gay marrige strikes me as a little odd, however I have no issue with it. If two people of the same gender just HAPPEN to love eachother that way & wanna get married..So be it ^^ Hahaha...Naruto referrences :3

Shinji_
July 14th, 2007, 05:05 AM
I'm against it 100%. I don't agree with it at all and being a Christian it's obvious that I wouldnt agree, I dont wanna get all religious but God Made Adam a Guy and Eve a Girl in the beginning for a reason so that people would realize that a guy is supposed to marry a girl not the same sex thats not right.

I'm for Gay marriage. Love is Love! God wanted Love in the World, so Gay Marriage being illegal would be against God's wishes.

(Sorry, I sound like a right Jerk here but its kinda true...)


O_O;; No offense but are you kidding me? God did not want people to be gay if you know so much about what God wants then go read your bible and you will see that your wrong :)

Ichigo Roza Mystica
July 14th, 2007, 08:18 AM
Homosexuality is an abomination unto the Lord (Leviticus 18:22)
Here're some other equal abominations according to the bible)

Shaving (Leviticus 19:22)
Shrimp (Leviticus 11:10)
Tattoos (Leviticus 19:28)
Working on Saturday (Leviticus 19:30)
Polyester (Leviticus 19:19)
Bunnies (Leviticus 11:6)
Hamburger (Leviticus 17:10)
Vegetable Gardens (Leviticus 19:19)

Talk about knowin' your bible, huh?

Allstories
July 14th, 2007, 08:44 AM
Hey, guys, maybe it's possible to believe in god without taking everything from A BOOK seriously.

Taichi
July 14th, 2007, 05:28 PM
Im for gay marriage. especially guy and guy marriage. More girls for me. lol

Drifblim
July 14th, 2007, 06:54 PM
...Besides, most of you refuse to give a real good reason the post is offensive besides the fact that I gave a little history lesson.

And if I'm such a gay hater, how come no one seems to be protesting against Shinji or anyone else and saying "That is the most despicable post evur"?Firstly, you seem more than a little arrogant at stating your view of marriage and those involved. It's fine if you disagree on the subject of same-sex marriage. It is NOT fine, however, if you turn your opinion into a polemic and attack others if they differ.

As for Shiniji_, he's apparently a creationist and believes that same-sex marriage is a contravention of God's word. That's fine, yet I believe the second post he's made could have been more civil than just saying 'you're wrong'.

Part of a topic like this is keeping a civil tongue and defending what you believe, but that requires a real look at what you believe, not an assault on what others think.

Captain Arcane
July 14th, 2007, 07:14 PM
I'm against it 100%. I don't agree with it at all and being a Christian it's obvious that I wouldnt agree, I dont wanna get all religious but God Made Adam a Guy and Eve a Girl in the beginning for a reason so that people would realize that a guy is supposed to marry a girl not the same sex thats not right.

The bible does not say that God made them "just to get married". He made them so we could breed, basicaly live on.

In my opinion, that book is full of bologna. Thats just my opinion.

I too am christian, but that doesn't mean that gay marriage is wrong. For christians, Jesus Christ sacraficed his life to save our's. Why, becuase according to the bible, if you ever look at a woman with lust, then you would go to hell, and many other things. So, jesus died for our sins, in order for forgiveness....The key word in that sentence is "Forgiveness".

So, if the christian religion is true, and if you are forgivin for all your sins, then being gay could be forgiven too. Even though its supposably against God's wishes, you would be forgiven. If not, then the bible would be contradicting itself, and if the bible "is" the word of god, and if it did contradict itself, then the whole book would be wrong.

Samurai X
July 15th, 2007, 01:56 PM
What sort of history lesson was that? And yes, it was offensive. I'll just remind your kiddie brain what you typed:


It 'amazes me' that gay people would be stoned and now people defend homosexuality? Well obviously that shows your views on the comparison, so stoning people to death is better than others accepting somebody else’s way of life? Your post clearly implies that 'olden days' of throwing rocks is better.
That is over 10% of the worldwide population. Seems like a lot of stones to throw to me.


I don't get what you're trying to say here. You probably didn't get what he was saying. He's obviously just stating how much things have changed since those days, not whether it's better or not. The rest of his post was offensive though I'll give you that.

Ichigo Roza Mystica
July 15th, 2007, 02:27 PM
cuz calling everyone pansies for thinking such is a wonderful "statement of fact" amirite?

Apathetic_Yen
July 15th, 2007, 04:46 PM
Gosh who posted this thread agian?

Kasu-chan
July 15th, 2007, 04:49 PM
I am for gay marriage. Love shouldn't be limited to between a man and a woman. Why? Love comes in various manners possible, and this is one of them. So what if the two are of the same gender? What's important is the happiness, love, trust, and respect they share for each other.

Should anyone be disrespected just because of their sexual orientation? I think not. People are entitled to their own beliefs.

Angelix
July 15th, 2007, 04:49 PM
I'm Catholic, but I'm only Catholic because I was born Catholic. We don't go to Church on Sunday, or anything. And I'm bisexual. But I don't really care.

As for gay marriage, I voted 'For it', simply because that's my view on it. However, I believe there are some issues that should be addressed.

Something that just amazes me is the fact that in the olden days, you'd be stoned (even to death) if you were gay, and nowadays we have little pink butterfly wussies going around defending gay MARRIAGE.
Not all gay people are like that, you know. Apparently, you've been raised in a place that seems to be defying the inevitable, since gay people are always going to be around. Gay people can be as manly or womanly as a heterosexual. Whether they choose to be or not is their choice, and their choice alone, you can't attack that and say that all homosexuals are alike.

Regarding the Bible, who gives a damn? It's a book, for sanity's sake. God wanted us to love everyone and to be accepting, and he himself was an accepting person. If he really didn't want gay people around, he would have given us an order to kill them, or he would have rounded all the heterosexuals into a boat and made a flood.

The end.

Weatherman, Kiyoshi
July 15th, 2007, 05:07 PM
Something that just amazes me is the fact that in the olden days, you'd be stoned (even to death) if you were gay, and nowadays we have little pink butterfly wussies going around defending gay MARRIAGE.

In all my years at PC, this may be among the most despicable things I have ever read on this message board. Tell me you're not serious.

Good olden days... In where? Philestine? :\
Also when you could have as many wives as you want, When we had to stay in on Sundays or get stoned, When eating food could get you stoned, When leaving home as a child could get you stoned, When having a partner before marriage could get you stoned, When pre adolescents were in arranged marriages, When children would be sold into slavery, When we could prove innocence in a fight to the death, When a sensible law was out of place?
Yes it truly is amazing how less civilised humanity as become with age!

Homosexuality is a way of life, like having a different skin colour. If you can't accept people for this, then there is clearly something wrong with you.

For those who took their time to "compliment" on my opinion:

http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u238/Yutss/D.jpg



Besides, most of you refuse to give a real good reason the post is offensive besides the fact that I gave a little history lesson.

And if I'm such a gay hater, how come no one seems to be protesting against Shinji or anyone else and saying "That is the most despicable post evur"?

And Jwilso, refresh me on when I said "Good" olden days.

What sort of history lesson was that? And yes, it was offensive. I'll just remind your kiddie brain what you typed:


It 'amazes me' that gay people would be stoned and now people defend homosexuality? Well obviously that shows your views on the comparison, so stoning people to death is better than others accepting somebody else’s way of life? Your post clearly implies that 'olden days' of throwing rocks is better.
That is over 10% of the worldwide population. Seems like a lot of stones to throw to me.

And also 'little pink butterfly wussies'... bashing people because of their views is pathetic, that’s not even a good insult. Because someone has outspoken opinions doesn’t mean that they’re a wimp, quite the opposite actually. Associating people who defend homosexuality with 'pink buttefly wussies' also reflects how stupid you must be. Maybe it's something you learnt from the playground or something.

Also, Shinji_ and others comments weren't offensive. They did not attack other peoples views unfairly, but explained their reasons by stating their opinions, often based on some sort of religious viewpoint.

Also a random point, if you’re homophobic on the outside, then its more likely that you have homosexual feelings. Homophobia shows that the individual is unable accept other peoples ways of life caused by stigmatism of modern day society, so intends to hide their own beliefs by acting the polar opposite.

I'm not gay at all, but I'm not idiotic enough to criticise or discriminate millions of people because I cant accept their way of life.

I'm Catholic, but I'm only Catholic because I was born Catholic. We don't go to Church on Sunday, or anything. And I'm bisexual. But I don't really care.

As for gay marriage, I voted 'For it', simply because that's my view on it. However, I believe there are some issues that should be addressed.


Not all gay people are like that, you know. Apparently, you've been raised in a place that seems to be defying the inevitable, since gay people are always going to be around. Gay people can be as manly or womanly as a heterosexual. Whether they choose to be or not is their choice, and their choice alone, you can't attack that and say that all homosexuals are alike.

Regarding the Bible, who gives a damn? It's a book, for sanity's sake. God wanted us to love everyone and to be accepting, and he himself was an accepting person. If he really didn't want gay people around, he would have given us an order to kill them, or he would have rounded all the heterosexuals into a boat and made a flood.

The end.

...

You know, whenever a topic of Homosexuality comes up, PC starts a flame war. Because if there is even one a bible crazy Catholic in the database, topics like this start a fight.

It's getting pretty sick to see PC imploding on itself.

Did some of us come to join PC?
Or did some of us just come here to start a flame war?

hm...
By the look of the quoted, the second one seems right.

Allstories
July 15th, 2007, 05:29 PM
Hey, I didn't join PC to engage in flame wars. *starts fistfight*

Weatherman, Kiyoshi
July 15th, 2007, 05:35 PM
Hey, I didn't join PC to engage in flame wars. *starts fistfight*

I wasn't saying the quoted just joined to flame wars >>

I was saying PC members in general. Some didn't, But I believe there were some that did.

I didn't say "The quoted just joined to start flame wars" did I? I was reflecting the quoted posts on the flame wars that was happening in the posts.

Vavavoom ♣
July 15th, 2007, 06:04 PM
Im for gay marriage. especially guy and guy marriage. More girls for me. lol

I disagree with you because a Boy + a Boy or a Girl + a Girl doesn't make any sense. I'm not against them although I'm againt the marriage. I think it's just a weird idea to get married when your Gay/Lesbien. I know it's love and whatever but I think it's just weird and not normal. My opinion though. =P

marz
July 15th, 2007, 08:03 PM
I disagree with you because a Boy + a Boy or a Girl + a Girl doesn't make any sense. I'm not against them although I'm againt the marriage. I think it's just a weird idea to get married when your Gay/Lesbien. I know it's love and whatever but I think it's just weird and not normal. My opinion though. =P

Yeah but the homosexuals probably say that exact same thing against heterosexuals. "Isn't it weird to get married to a girl when you're a guy?"
So, in the end, it makes no difference, if you love them, you should be able to have the right to marry. It's like an official "I will spend the rest of my life with you." scratching out the divorce possibility. :\

Hey, guys, maybe it's possible to believe in god without taking everything from A BOOK seriously.

I second that.

Always and Never
July 15th, 2007, 10:33 PM
I'm against gay marriage. But that doesn't mean I hate people who are gay, or dislike them in any way.

Just, I don't support it. A bond between a man and a woman has been the norm of society forever. And it will always be.

Humans are just a species of animals, and all animals have the same instinct. To reproduce. Mix that with the human mind, and emotions, and of course you'll get different occurances.

Homosexuals can get married, but I'm not like "You got my thumbs up!"

Kewldude52
July 15th, 2007, 11:04 PM
It does not matter if your gay or not as long as they both love eachother nothing is wrong.

The Real AAA
July 15th, 2007, 11:36 PM
It does not matter if your gay or not as long as they both love eachother nothing is wrong.

Why is it not wrong?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Male + Female = Child

Male + Male or Female + Female = Adopted! <geez that will suck big time

Always and Never
July 15th, 2007, 11:51 PM
There's no need to poke fun <.<

I'm sure they don't choose there lifestyle. There has to be some kind of hereditary trait.

I personally think it isn't voluntary, which is why I wouldn't even think about poking fun.

Weatherman, Kiyoshi
July 16th, 2007, 04:44 AM
Why is it not wrong?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Male + Female = Child

Male + Male or Female + Female = Adopted! <geez that will suck big time

It's not wrong for people to love eachother and be the same sex because they have reasons that didn't come out of a book.

...

Suck big time?
Wouldn't you think that the kids in the orphanage would like to be adopted by a gay couple as much as a straight couple as long as they get adopted and have parents to care for them?

Heck, If I was an Orphan, and if any type of couple, Gay or Straight, was thinking to adopt me, I would try my best to get adopted by them and get the crap out of that orphanage! I mean, who wants to be an Orphan? I certainly don't.

Vavavoom ♣
July 16th, 2007, 05:28 AM
Male + Male or Female + Female = Adopted! <geez that will suck big time

Wait a second:

Male + Male or Female + Female = Adopted = Disagree. Doesn't make any sense!

Ariel
July 16th, 2007, 05:47 AM
I am for gay marriage. Love shouldn't be limited to between a man and a woman. Why? Love comes in various manners possible, and this is one of them. So what if the two are of the same gender? What's important is the happiness, love, trust, and respect they share for each other.

Should anyone be disrespected just because of their sexual orientation? I think not. People are entitled to their own beliefs.

I whole-heartedly second that.

I don't really see any need to stop them getting married just because they are the same gender. Couldn't it be classed as discrimination?
I mean, refusal to letting two homosexuals be Wed...in some places, could it not be Discrimination for it to be illegal?

Always and Never
July 16th, 2007, 09:10 AM
It's not wrong for people to love eachother and be the same sex because they have reasons that didn't come out of a book.

...

Suck big time?
Wouldn't you think that the kids in the orphanage would like to be adopted by a gay couple as much as a straight couple as long as they get adopted and have parents to care for them?

Heck, If I was an Orphan, and if any type of couple, Gay or Straight, was thinking to adopt me, I would try my best to get adopted by them and get the crap out of that orphanage! I mean, who wants to be an Orphan? I certainly don't.

With that you make it sound like orphans just use people...

One thing I have to criticize about a woman and a woman is sperm banks. When women decide to have a child, using a sperm bank may be the only reasonable option.

They've had a lot of specials on lately about siblings, and children being from the same sperm donor. So people who are artificially inseminated may have brothers and sisters they don't even know about.

Not to mention having that whole half of your life missing, and hereditary diseases that you have no knowing about.

:/

marz
July 16th, 2007, 09:14 AM
A bond between a man and a woman has been the norm of society forever.
That's only because we didn't exactly know about sexual orientations forever. If we did, then there wouldn't be one norm, but two. The bond between a man and a woman, as well as the bond between two men/women.

Not to mention having that whole half of your life missing, and hereditary diseases that you have no knowing about.

Although that is true, not everyone will subdue to that. I have a friend with two mothers. She seems fine, she's not depressed because she doesn't know what it's like to have a father.


I'm going on a rant against scyther today o_o;

Always and Never
July 16th, 2007, 09:25 AM
That's only because we didn't exactly know about sexual orientations forever. If we did, then there wouldn't be one norm, but two. The bond between a man and a woman, as well as the bond between two men/women.

Yeah, I think not. Based on what your saying, your going back to when we looked like monkeys more than we looked like now.

If the bond between a man and a woman was the same, even when we were dumb as monkeys, then why would there be two norms?

I'm telling you something hereditary must've appeared sometime when we could actually think for ourselves, instead of instincts.

marz
July 16th, 2007, 09:31 AM
Yeah, I think not. Based on what your saying, your going back to when we looked like monkeys more than we looked like now.

If the bond between a man and a woman was the same, even when we were dumb as monkeys, then why would there be two norms?

I'm telling you something hereditary must've appeared sometime when we could actually think for ourselves, instead of instincts.

So you're saying that when we were monkeys, we could only have sex with a monkey of the opposite gender (monkeys weren't getting married back then)? I don't think so. I doubt that the Bible was based on our actions way back in the early stages of human evolution, and the Bible is what states how humans should be able to marry. Except, not everyone is religious, or religious enough to an extent to read or live their life by what the Bible says, and if that person happens to be gay, they'll be getting the thought of marriage with their partner.

Always and Never
July 16th, 2007, 09:40 AM
Yeah, if the bible is your main argument, it also says only a man and a women may marry. And I'm not saying we couldn't of had sex with male monkeys [LOL, enough with monkeys] but we WOULD only have sex with the opposite gender.

Marriage is one of the seven sacraments, made for religious beliefs.

Even when straight people who have no religious beliefs get married, it makes me think that they're totally hypocritical. I mean why follow the sacraments, if you don't follow god.

Akio123
July 16th, 2007, 09:43 AM
Here is soemthing I just wanted to get out there:
No matter what, you can't help who you fall in love with. Wheter it be two men or two women, the should have the right to marry no matter what. Not to mention wheter someone is gay, does not affect you unless you are gay. Your life still goes on.

Jaimes
July 16th, 2007, 11:01 AM
OMG I need to argue :P
Marriage is one of the seven sacraments, made for religious beliefs.

Even when straight people who have no religious beliefs get married, it makes me think that they're totally hypocritical. I mean why follow the sacraments, if you don't follow god.

Marriage probably never was made for religous beliefs and most cerainly isn't carried out like this today.

Marriage is carried out by ALL religions, it can't be associated with just Judaism/Christianity and evidence shows that early forms of partnership happened before recorded religions existed.

Marriage is made to show unison of two people (in a relationship preferably).
Marriage is used to encourage the growing up of a household and forming bonds.
Marriage is a contract used for legal purposes such as sharing property.
Marriage allowed children to rightfully inherit some property.
Marriage acts as a bridge between feuding families (eg War of the Roses).
Marriage was once used to show dominance and ownership (quite sexist, but its true, since in most religious scripture, males are the more dominant over females).

Religions have used some of these reasons of marriage and fitted them into its own beliefs. Using the Bible as an example; The Seven Sacraments, is also based from Catholical views, a branch of Christianity that has come around a few hundred or so years after the bible was written. I cant find anywhere in the Bible that explicity states the invention of Marriage for religous reasons (please correct me if I am wrong however).
Other marriages worldwide are not affected by Catholic doctrine, eg Hindu weddings.

That's only because we didn't exactly know about sexual orientations forever. If we did, then there wouldn't be one norm, but two. The bond between a man and a woman, as well as the bond between two men/women.
Sexual orientations don't really change, homosexuality has been recorded from ages ago. Heterosexuality will always be more recognised as the 'norm' since it is more common (hmm 90% of people).

Not to mention having that whole half of your life missing, and hereditary diseases that you have no knowing about.
Legally, you're allowed to find the father/mother once you're 18. Woman can also have an in vitro fertilisation, using an embryo that is not there own. In most places (here anyway) there is restrictions about who donates gametes. Eitherway, the offspring wouldnt necessarily be missing a parent, since the new ones could more than make up for it.

If the bond between a man and a woman was the same, even when we were dumb as monkeys, then why would there be two norms?

I'm telling you something hereditary must've appeared sometime when we could actually think for ourselves, instead of instincts.
LOL this is offensive to monkeys XD :laugh:
Humans are animals. Homosexuality occurs between animals as well as humans.
As an animal, we still have 'instincts', it is instinct that we defend ourselves or family members. Animals on the other hand are also able to think for themselves, just to a lesser extent than us.

Yeah, if the bible is your main argument,
No offense, but using the Bible as proof that another persons sexual orientation is wrong, is like using Mein Kampf to justify anti semitism.

The Real AAA
July 16th, 2007, 11:36 AM
It's not wrong for people to love eachother and be the same sex because they have reasons that didn't come out of a book.

...

Suck big time?
Wouldn't you think that the kids in the orphanage would like to be adopted by a gay couple as much as a straight couple as long as they get adopted and have parents to care for them?

Heck, If I was an Orphan, and if any type of couple, Gay or Straight, was thinking to adopt me, I would try my best to get adopted by them and get the crap out of that orphanage! I mean, who wants to be an Orphan? I certainly don't.

I really don't care what you think because I'm always going to be against it and yeah if I was to see a gay couple I can't or wouldn't stop them.I just disagree with it dude.

JBCBlank
July 16th, 2007, 11:51 AM
I'm for it to tell you the truth, I say that people should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies, I mean, tabooing is against the bible but people do it anyway. I say that you can do what you want as long as you're willing to take responsibility for it.

~JBCBlank

Always and Never
July 16th, 2007, 07:54 PM
I'm for it to tell you the truth, I say that people should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies, I mean, tabooing is against the bible but people do it anyway. I say that you can do what you want as long as you're willing to take responsibility for it.

~JBCBlank

If your parents were gay, you wouldn't be here, would you?

Ichigo Roza Mystica
July 16th, 2007, 09:41 PM
Sure you would, you'd just be adopted and instead of being brought up by somebody not capable of such (hence, you being up for adoption in the first place), you'd be with two loving parents instead.

Always and Never
July 16th, 2007, 10:23 PM
wtf? You're saying that every man/woman relationship is total crap?

Seriously. You personally wouldn't be here if either of your parents was gay.

Homosexuality has everything to do with religion and stuff. Virtually every religion in the world, including the major ones in this country, consider homosexuality unacceptable. It is offensive and a swipe to the religious freedom of the majority to have to recognize a relationship they consider sinful. The legal system in the United States evolved out of the laws contained in the Bible. We shouldn't go even farther to tear down those laws.

The 50 percent divorce rate has already weakened the definition of marriage. We shouldn't be taking further steps to define what marriage is. A law allowing gay marriage would increase the number of joke or non-serious marriages, such as a couple of friends who want to save on taxes. [like that one movie with Adam Sandler ] Marriage is the most sacred institution in this country, and every society considers it the joining of a man and a woman. It makes biological sense since only a man and woman can pro-create.
The building blocks of our society and the thing that makes it strong is the traditional family of man, woman, and children. It is what has sustained us through two world wars, a great depression, and numerous other challenges over the centuries. While friends & lovers come and go, your family is always there. The main reason our culture and values have started to crumble is the weakening of families. Introducing another form of "family" would only make the situation worse.

mew42003
July 16th, 2007, 11:36 PM
I'm against Gay Marrige. I believe in a Civil Union, but I don't think it should be called Marriage when a couple of the same sex are "Wed". And a marriage is a sacred bond between a Man and a Woman. Actually, I agree with everything Mitt Romney says about Gay Marriage. And don't flame me for my beliefs--Eveyone is entitled an opinion, aren't we?

Ichigo Roza Mystica
July 17th, 2007, 12:29 AM
wtf? You're saying that every man/woman relationship is total crap?

Seriously. You personally wouldn't be here if either of your parents was gay..

No, I said that if a child is up for adoption that the parents were inept and the child would be far better off with a gay couple adopting them.

Also, rest of your post is copypasta so it's irrelevent.

Always and Never
July 17th, 2007, 12:36 AM
Ha ha, good eye. Well, I edited out the stuff I copied and pasted. I didn't even like it anyways. The stuff I left is from my heart.

And why would they be better off with a gay couple? Because all Male/ Female relationships are inept?

Jaimes
July 17th, 2007, 12:46 AM
Wahoo arguing... :P

Virtually every religion in the world, including the major ones in this country, consider homosexuality unacceptable. It is offensive and a swipe to the religious freedom of the majority to have to recognize a relationship they consider sinful. The legal system in the United States evolved out of the laws contained in the Bible. We shouldn't go even farther to tear down those laws.


Just because an ancient religion decrees a belief, doesn't mean it is correct. Your legal system branched out from British law (which mostly originated from Roman law, and a small amount of Biblical scripture). However in modern day, UK allows civil partnership and discrimination is practically illegal, in US it doesn't appear so. Does this mean that UKs laws has just evolved a bit further than yours? Is religion the cause for slower development of ideas?

EDIT: Bah just realised the post was changed.. even though the copy&paste was pretty much the best counter argument I've seen so far..*Deletes paragraph...*

Anyway, I found this posted once, its quite a humorous read:
10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans ™ always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Ichigo Roza Mystica
July 17th, 2007, 12:55 AM
Ha ha, good eye. Well, I edited out the stuff I copied and pasted. I didn't even like it anyways. The stuff I left is from my heart.

And why would they be better off with a gay couple? Because all Male/ Female relationships are inept?

Because if the child is up for ADOPTATION in the first place, that implies that the birth parents aren't right to raise that child.

Always and Never
July 17th, 2007, 12:56 AM
Just because an ancient religion decrees a belief, doesn't mean it is correct. Your legal system branched out from British law (which mostly originated from Roman law, and a small amount of Biblical scripture). However in modern day, UK allows civil partnership and discrimination is practically illegal, in US it doesn't appear so. Does this mean that UKs laws has just evolved a bit further than yours? Is religion the cause for slower development of ideas?

That post is two-sided. First you talk about how England is better [we won the war by the way ^_^] but then you list that 10 list thing.

And if England allows it, then that makes me sure we shouldn't have it.

Because if the child is up for ADOPTATION in the first place, that implies that the birth parents aren't right to raise that child.

What about other natural couples. I'm pretty sure that some straight people are good parents too, so they can take the adopted baby also.

Ichigo Roza Mystica
July 17th, 2007, 01:02 AM
That post is two-sided. First you talk about how England is better [we won the war by the way ^_^] but then you list that 10 list thing.

And if England allows it, then that makes me sure we shouldn't have it.



What about other natural couples. I'm pretty sure that some straight people are good parents too, so they can take the adopted baby also.
Isn't the justication that homopeoples can't breed so it's un-natural and against gods will? Therefore aren't infertile couples just as against gods will, cause they can't breed? :P

Always and Never
July 17th, 2007, 01:03 AM
Of course not. God didn't make the female or male sterile. Obviously.
And it is impossible for a man to have a baby. In case you didn't realize that.

God made the first two people Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve.

That's a joke I just read somewhere. And I have to agree with it 100%.

I mean, biologically speaking, the only logical togetherness, is a male and a female.

Ichigo Roza Mystica
July 17th, 2007, 01:19 AM
Of course not. God didn't make the female or male sterile. Obviously.
And it is impossible for a man to have a baby. In case you didn't realize that.

God made the first two people Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve.

That's a joke I just read somewhere. And I have to agree with it 100%.

I mean, biologically speaking, the only logical togetherness, is a male and a female.
Actually, if you choose to believe that god's hand guides all fate, then yes, God did make infertile people the way they are.

Jaimes
July 17th, 2007, 01:24 AM
That post is two-sided. First you talk about how England is better [we won the war by the way ^_^] but then you list that 10 list thing.
And if England allows it, then that makes me sure we shouldn't have it.


No. I was comparing the UK and US where both our legal systems have originated from the same place and started to differ.It would be fair to say that US is a lot more influenced by religious reasons, since your president is a strong Christian. In UK religion doesn't really have as large an impact, which probably explains why the law isn't as discriminatory to homosexuals.
You hardly won WW2, you came in 2years late ^^. Also whats wrong with the UK? We invented the TV for one..


10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society [its meant to be sarcastic]

1. 1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans ™ always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.


Erm.. The 10 point thing is highly satirical lol. It supports gay marriage by contrasting most of the main arguments against it with everyday things.

Angelix
July 17th, 2007, 01:51 AM
There's no need to poke fun <.<

I'm sure they don't choose there lifestyle. There has to be some kind of hereditary trait.

I personally think it isn't voluntary, which is why I wouldn't even think about poking fun.

It's not voluntary, it's like liking different foods. I'm serious.


Anyway, I found this posted once, its quite a humorous read:
10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans ™ always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.


No, I don't mean to flame you or anything, but that list seems horribly old. (Blacks can't marry whites? 'Haven't adapted to cars'?

Jaimes
July 17th, 2007, 02:18 AM
No, I don't mean to flame you or anything, but that list seems horribly old. (Blacks can't marry whites? 'Haven't adapted to cars'?

AAaargh... It's being sarcastic, it's taking common things we see today and putting them against the main arguments against same sex marriage

>_<

Astinus
July 17th, 2007, 02:24 AM
No, I don't mean to flame you or anything, but that list seems horribly old. (Blacks can't marry whites? 'Haven't adapted to cars'?
It's a joke. If you look at all those reasonings, they actually show how weak the arguments against gay marriage is. Because of all those loopholes that were pointed out.

I mean, biologically speaking, the only logical togetherness, is a male and a female.
So, let's say that I get married to the man I love now. We can't have children because of a medical condition I don't want to get into. If a man and a woman are the only logical togetherness because they can have babies, then would my relationship be illogical? Man + Woman = Child, just not all the time.

There has to be some kind of hereditary trait.
It's not a hereditary trait. It's more of a mutation that happens in development of the brain.

God made the first two people Adam and Eve. Not Adam and Steve.
There's a joke on that too, but I won't share it. But it was just a really hilarious take on that whole argument.

Besides, all the times that the Bible mentions that homosexuality is wrong are pretty much outdated now. The Bible says that you are supposed to go out and multiply because of the prosecution faced from the Romans. The Catholic faith needed more followers, so they told the ones that they already had that God wants them to make babies. And as for the other argument, it's outdated. You couldn't eat pork because of unsanitary reasons. It's the same with homosexual practices. Both were unsanitary at that time, but not anymore.

Allstories
July 17th, 2007, 06:27 AM
The main reason our culture and values have started to crumble is the weakening of families. Introducing another form of "family" would only make the situation worse.

Umm, what the hell?

Maybe I'm just ignorant here, but could you elaborate on this for me a bit? Because that argument sounds like baseless conjecture to me. How does having more families hurt existing families?

Merzbau
July 17th, 2007, 09:00 AM
Wahoo arguing... :P


Just because an ancient religion decrees a belief, doesn't mean it is correct. Your legal system branched out from British law (which mostly originated from Roman law, and a small amount of Biblical scripture). However in modern day, UK allows civil partnership and discrimination is practically illegal, in US it doesn't appear so. Does this mean that UKs laws has just evolved a bit further than yours? Is religion the cause for slower development of ideas?

EDIT: Bah just realised the post was changed.. even though the copy&paste was pretty much the best counter argument I've seen so far..*Deletes paragraph...*

Anyway, I found this posted once, its quite a humorous read:
10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans ™ always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.


Down with black women, up with God!

Simply put...

The separation of church and state is in our constitution. It is not the government's job to say whether or not something is "sanctified". It is their job to tell us it is legally binding and we have the same rights as anyone else to have a legally binding relationship with the person we love, with the same exact rights any straight person has, and have a "marriage" just the same as a straight person.

A marriage by any other name isn't a marriage. It's a civil union. Right?

Do you remember the times of Segregation? "Separate but equal".

It still stands today that separate is not equal, and saying it is, is a blatant lie.

The day when I get married is going to be a great day, no matter if it's to Eve or Steve.

Those who stand against us are looking at the biggest civil rights movement of modern times, and you are looking at one of its supporters as you read these words.

Religion does not own me.

Neither do the teachings of it, and the bigotry expressed therefore by its most radical supporters.

Weatherman, Kiyoshi
July 17th, 2007, 09:32 AM
Wahoo arguing... :P


Just because an ancient religion decrees a belief, doesn't mean it is correct. Your legal system branched out from British law (which mostly originated from Roman law, and a small amount of Biblical scripture). However in modern day, UK allows civil partnership and discrimination is practically illegal, in US it doesn't appear so. Does this mean that UKs laws has just evolved a bit further than yours? Is religion the cause for slower development of ideas?

EDIT: Bah just realised the post was changed.. even though the copy&paste was pretty much the best counter argument I've seen so far..*Deletes paragraph...*

Anyway, I found this posted once, its quite a humorous read:
10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Will Ruin Society

1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans ™ always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.


I like how it said "Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children"

I wonder if they took the thought of "Gay children were made by straight couples, too"

If Gay people did not come from straight parents,
would Homosexuality even EXIST?

Of course, Gays are just like blacks, can't marry white people!

Women are Property? If that were true, My mom would have already killed my dad for saying that he owns her.


---

On a different topic, have you ever noticed that One of the top and only reasons people are against gays in general is religion?

Yeah, RELIGION gives you the right to be a bastard.

"It sure does!"

Allstories
July 17th, 2007, 09:55 AM
;2634962']A marriage by any other name isn't a marriage. It's a civil union. Right?


http://dylangallagher.googlepages.com/buttbuddies.JPG

"We'll just call it something else. Instead of being 'married', you'll be 'butt-buddies'!"

Always and Never
July 17th, 2007, 11:39 AM
It's a joke. If you look at all those reasonings, they actually show how weak the arguments against gay marriage is. Because of all those loopholes that were pointed out.


So, let's say that I get married to the man I love now. We can't have children because of a medical condition I don't want to get into. If a man and a woman are the only logical togetherness because they can have babies, then would my relationship be illogical? Man + Woman = Child, just not all the time.


It's not a hereditary trait. It's more of a mutation that happens in development of the brain.


There's a joke on that too, but I won't share it. But it was just a really hilarious take on that whole argument.

Besides, all the times that the Bible mentions that homosexuality is wrong are pretty much outdated now. The Bible says that you are supposed to go out and multiply because of the prosecution faced from the Romans. The Catholic faith needed more followers, so they told the ones that they already had that God wants them to make babies. And as for the other argument, it's outdated. You couldn't eat pork because of unsanitary reasons. It's the same with homosexual practices. Both were unsanitary at that time, but not anymore.
If you think that gay sex is so sanitary, thank you for AIDS.

Umm, what the hell?

Maybe I'm just ignorant here, but could you elaborate on this for me a bit? Because that argument sounds like baseless conjecture to me. How does having more families hurt existing families?

Ummm, that's simple to answer. Because with gay marriage, there wouldn't be more families. They wouldn't reproduce. Obviously <.<

On a different topic, have you ever noticed that One of the top and only reasons people are against gays in general is religion?

Yeah, RELIGION gives you the right to be a bastard.

"It sure does!"
Yeah, once again, thank you for AIDS.

http://dylangallagher.googlepages.com/buttbuddies.JPG

"We'll just call it something else. Instead of being 'married', you'll be 'butt-buddies'!"
It brings new meaning to the word fudgesicle.

The Real AAA
July 17th, 2007, 12:24 PM
Gay Marriage is not just bad from religion but also bad in society.If tomorrow if everyone was to fall in love with the same gender and as time past by the human race wouldn't exist no more!

Jaimes
July 17th, 2007, 12:25 PM
If you think that gay sex is so sanitary, thank you for AIDS.

Time for me to make an umpteenth point about HIV/AIDS this week. Blah.

Gay sex 'didn't cause AIDS'. HIV/AIDS is in no way restricted to Homosexuals. And never was. It is most likely it originated from heterosexual intercourse and passed on.

If you are promiscuous gay man, you are less likely to contract HIV than a straight promiscuous person, since gay people are more aware of the risks and take better precautions towards STDs.
As a result the percentage of gays with HIV is lower than that of straight people.

So using your point, if homosexual sex isn't sanitary, then neither is heterosexual sex, breastfeeding or childbirth.

HIV and AIDS is mainly caused nowadays by sharing needles and sex between straight couples than gay ones. If you think that using AIDS as an excuse for homophobia is justified, then you are quite mistaken.

Always and Never
July 17th, 2007, 01:13 PM
It was proven that a gay helicopter pilot, who had HIV, flew to a bunch of different cities, and passed it on to his gay partners. HIV Started in monkeys, but a single gay man spread it to mainstream society.

And of course the percentage would be lower. There are less fags.

Jaimes
July 17th, 2007, 01:38 PM
It was proven that a gay helicopter pilot, who had HIV, flew to a bunch of different cities, and passed it on to his gay partners. HIV Started in monkeys, but a single gay man spread it to mainstream society.

Any proof of this? There is a load of debate about how it spread, but tbh I've never seen this man the blame for it. It has been documented in later 1950s in a tribesman, but evidence and symptons suggest that it could have been around in Europe in 1930s and even earlier. We can't just throw the blame upon one person, when we have flawed evidence.

And of course the percentage would be lower. There are less fags
A percentage is a percentage... :\ Do you know how a percentage works..? It has nothing to do with the number of gay men.

Also the use of the word 'fag' is offensive, didn't you yourself say:
I personally think it isn't voluntary, which is why I wouldn't even think about poking fun.
Slight contradiction there.

Always and Never
July 17th, 2007, 01:54 PM
Actually, there is proof. Watch the History Channel.

They had a whole special about it.

Well, with health care's cost now, imagine with all the gays running around. It will certainly pinch your pocket then. And don't start saying that homos have no control over how health care works. It has everything to do with it.

Akio123
July 17th, 2007, 02:17 PM
It was proven that a gay helicopter pilot, who had HIV, flew to a bunch of different cities, and passed it on to his gay partners. HIV Started in monkeys, but a single gay man spread it to mainstream society.

And of course the percentage would be lower. There are less fags.
Not to be rude, but that has nothing to do with being gay. Anyone could have HIV.

Allstories
July 17th, 2007, 02:23 PM
Gay Marriage is not just bad from religion but also bad in society.If tomorrow if everyone was to fall in love with the same gender and as time past by the human race wouldn't exist no more!
Well, with health care's cost now, imagine with all the gays running around. It will certainly pinch your pocket then.

NEWS FLASH: HOMOSEXUALITY ALREADY EXISTS. You are not somehow encouraging nature to produce exclusively/more gay people BY GIVING THEM A LEGAL STATUS. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? HOW ON EARTH DID YOU GET THAT NOTION? IF ANYONE WAS GAY, THEN IT'S BLOODY LIKELY THEY WEREN'T GOING TO MARRY A WOMAN ANYWAY. It's not going to make homosexuality suddenly more rampant and, if anything, I would imagine it would discourage the spreading of STDs, because it would in turn discourage having multiple partners if anything. You're not worried about the good of mankind. You're just xenophobic because of the media's portrayal of gay culture and its affect on your idea of normalcy.

Jaimes
July 17th, 2007, 02:59 PM
Actually, there is proof. Watch the History Channel.

They had a whole special about it.

Well, with health care's cost now, imagine with all the gays running around. It will certainly pinch your pocket then. And don't start saying that homos have no control over how health care works. It has everything to do with it.

No, it is an unproveable situation. It's like finding who first got the common cold and then slating that person for the other millions who also got it. Telling me to 'watch the History Channel' isn't proof.

This is taken from the Avert website, which I also feel is a more credible source:
It is likely that we will never know who the first person was to be infected with HIV, or exactly how it spread from that point forwards. Scientists investigating the possibilities often become very attached to their individual 'pet' theories and insist that theirs is the only true answer, but the spread of AIDS could quite conceivably have been induced by a combination of many different events. .... So perhaps what the scientific community should now be focussing on is not how the AIDS epidemic originated, but how those it affects can be treated, how the further the spread of HIV can be prevented and how the world can be changed to ensure a similar pandemic never occurs again.

It is not for straight people to point the finger of blame upon the gay population, since still there is no proof. Straight people spread HIV more than gay people do, are we equally to blame as well?


And in terms of health care, I'm not sure what you're getting at. So its gay peoples fault for a flawed health care system in your country? Well.. if you say so.
But there are more straight people with STDs than gay people? So this population doesnt affect it?

Always and Never
July 17th, 2007, 03:02 PM
Interestingly enough, promiscuity(non-monogamous)(foolin around) in the homosexual community is RAMPANT, more so than the hetrosexual community. Fact not fiction. You must have spent too much time as a child watching rumper room.

And in terms of health care, I'm not sure what you're getting at. So its gay peoples fault for a flawed health care system in your country? Well.. if you say so.
But there are more straight people with STDs than gay people? So this population doesnt affect it?
If we have such a flawed system, why is it that people from Europe, and our sister country Canada, flock to the United States for surgeries that they have WAIT FOR under your flawed system.

Ichigo Roza Mystica
July 17th, 2007, 03:09 PM
Interestingly enough, promiscuity(non-monogamous)(foolin around) in the homosexual community is RAMPANT, more so than the hetrosexual community. Fact not fiction. You must have spent too much time as a child watching rumper room.


If we have such a flawed system, why is it that people from Europe, and our sister country Canada, flock to the United States for surgeries that they have WAIT FOR under your flawed system.

In a study of sexual behavior in homosexuals and heterosexuals, the researchers found that of gay and bisexual men, 24% had one male partner in their lifetime, 45% had 2-4 male partners, 13% had 5-9 male partners, and 18% had 10 or more sexual partners, which produces a mean of less than 6 partners. (The statistics I did by myself using the data presented, which is presented as a percentage of total males interviewed, both gay and straight (p. 345)--they can be verified yourself by looking at the numbers given in the paper)(Fay; n=97 gay males of 1450 males total). In a parallel study, a random sample of primarily straight men (n=3111 males who had had vaginal intercourse; of the total sample of n=3224 males, only 2.3% had indicated having had sex with both men and women), the mean number of sexual partners was 7.3, with 28.2% having 1-3 partners, and 23.3% having greater than 19 partners (Billy). This data indicates that gay men may have fewer number of sexual partners than heterosexuals.
Source. Gay Mental Health (http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html#prom).

For those of you who require a tl;dr explanation; Gay Guys: Around 6 sexual partners in a lifetime, on average. Straight Guys: Around 7 sexual partners in a lifetime, on average.

Damn. Wheres your 'fact not fiction' now? <3

Shijuukara
July 17th, 2007, 03:10 PM
It was proven that a gay helicopter pilot, who had HIV, flew to a bunch of different cities, and passed it on to his gay partners. HIV Started in monkeys, but a single gay man spread it to mainstream society.

And of course the percentage would be lower. There are less fags.

I am for gay marriage, being bisexual myself.

1. A Bisexual Flight Attendant spread HIV. He slept with close to 800 men and women in a year. Get your facts straight.

2. HIV did start in monkeys, but when we needed plasma for blood transfusions we took it from them and spread it.

Jaimes
July 17th, 2007, 03:11 PM
Interestingly enough, promiscuity(non-monogamous)(foolin around) in the homosexual community is RAMPANT, more so than the hetrosexual community. Fact not fiction. You must have spent too much time as a child watching rumper room.

If it's a fact, please support it with some credible proof. Your previous flawed arguments and homophobic stance does make me doubt what you say.
Common sense would say that since 10% of the population is homosexual, their promiscuity would be lower, because they would have a harder time finding a partner.

Did I really spend too much time watching 'rumper room'? That's news to me! In a debate/argument, insulting the person you're proving a point against does you no justice and flaws your argument further.
Especially when I don't even watch kiddy American shows....Since I don't live there. I even had to Google that to find out what it is (which I think you spelt 'Romper' wrong btw). :laugh:

Always and Never
July 17th, 2007, 03:15 PM
Yeah, it was a joke. "Rump"er room.

I need proof and you don't. That doesn't make any sense.

Jaimes
July 17th, 2007, 03:22 PM
Yeah, it was a joke. "Rump"er room.

I need proof and you don't. That doesn't make any sense.
Oh a joke! Sorry I didn't get it the first time... *Hilarity ensues* ;)

But you did say it was "Fact Not Fiction" and well, erm... you were wrong. :P
Judging by common sense and what Ichigo Roza Mystica showed, the statement of promiscuity in homosexuals being "RAMPANT, more so than the hetrosexual community" was completely false.
So I was again questioning your sources or whether you had made this 'fact' up.

Ichigo Roza Mystica
July 17th, 2007, 03:24 PM
Generally speaking, it seems to me that xxscytherxx just makes stuff up as he goes :P

Shijuukara
July 17th, 2007, 03:29 PM
Generally speaking, it seems to me that xxscytherxx just makes stuff up as he goes :P

No. He has some reason but he doesn't have complete true facts. Just pieces of them.

Always and Never
July 17th, 2007, 03:30 PM
Pshhhh, yeah right. Actually, what am I on? A computer. What does a computer have? Internet.

My father is also sitting right next to me. And he would know more than a medical student who goes on a Pokemon site.

Ichigo Roza Mystica
July 17th, 2007, 03:32 PM
Pshhhh, yeah right. Actually, what am I on? A computer. What does a computer have? Internet.

My father is also sitting right next to me. And he would know more than a medical student who goes on a Pokemon site.

And, from my estimation? He's a lifelong Christian Rightwinger.
Guess where the myth that homosexuals are more promiscuous propagated from? Ding! The Christian Right.

Always and Never
July 17th, 2007, 03:35 PM
Um, no, admitted so by the gay community. Ding, ding.
And my father just helps me get my facts straight. I'm the republican.

And I belive in god.

Ichigo Roza Mystica
July 17th, 2007, 03:38 PM
Homosexuals are no more promiscuous or predatory than heterosexuals
There is an extant myth, propagated by the Christian Right, that homosexuals engage in highly promiscuous behavior. Granted, there are some homosexuals that do engage in such behavior. But there are heterosexuals that do the same thing. What is important to recognize is the substantial heterosexist bias that causes people to ignore heterosexual flaws while highlighting homosexual flaws.
Source: Gay Mental Health (http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html#prom).
On snap. Doesn't look like it was the gay community who proclaimed that at all.

Shijuukara
July 17th, 2007, 03:38 PM
Um, no, admitted so by the gay community. Ding, ding.

...The gay community includes everyone saying they are promiscuous. Not just a few.
I am part of the gay community. And I am not promiscuous I am monogoumous. Many are monogoumous.

Jaimes
July 17th, 2007, 03:41 PM
My father is also sitting right next to me. And he would know more than a medical student who goes on a Pokemon site.

Oh if you say so..... Prove it :D
Then again, using your same reasoning, since you are using a Pokemon site, I don't see how this affects my judgement.

However, I am somewhat annoyed that Ichigo Roza Mystica typed my reckoning before I go to do so.

Ichigo Roza Mystica
July 17th, 2007, 03:43 PM
Oh if you say so..... Prove it :D
Then again, using your same reasoning, since you are using a Pokemon site, I don't see how this affects my judgement.

However, I am somewhat annoyed that Ichigo Roza Mystica typed my reckoning before I go to do so.
Ahahaha :D Guess I'm just too quick. Or have no life outside of refreshing this page and watching reruns of w.i.t.c.h.

Allstories
July 17th, 2007, 03:43 PM
My father is also sitting right next to me. And he would know more than a medical student who goes on a Pokemon site.

MY DAD IS SO SMART HE CAN TOTALLY BEAT UP YOUR OPINIONS.

Also, plz reply to my last post. I'm interested to see how you contest it.

Shijuukara
July 17th, 2007, 03:44 PM
MY DAD IS SO SMART HE CAN TOTALLY BEAT UP YOUR OPINIONS.

haha!

Just because your dad "says so" doesn't mean it's true scyther.

Ichigo Roza Mystica
July 17th, 2007, 03:45 PM
Golly gee I wish my dad was smart enough to brainwash me into hating minorities. I'm so jealous of you, scyther!

Always and Never
July 17th, 2007, 03:57 PM
NEWS FLASH: HOMOSEXUALITY ALREADY EXISTS. You are not somehow encouraging nature to produce exclusively/more gay people BY GIVING THEM A LEGAL STATUS. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? HOW ON EARTH DID YOU GET THAT NOTION? IF ANYONE WAS GAY, THEN IT'S BLOODY LIKELY THEY WEREN'T GOING TO MARRY A WOMAN ANYWAY. It's not going to make homosexuality suddenly more rampant and, if anything, I would imagine it would discourage the spreading of STDs, because it would in turn discourage having multiple partners if anything. You're not worried about the good of mankind. You're just xenophobic because of the media's portrayal of gay culture and its affect on your idea of normalcy.
Umm, news flash. Gay is not normal. Not at all. And you're saying that all gay people have STDs. So thanks for backing me up, bud.


Golly gee I wish my dad was smart enough to brainwash me into hating minorities. I'm so jealous of you, scyther!

...your kidding? I don't hate gay people. Like I said before. My dad is in the middle of the political spectrum.

I'm a total conservatist.
I'm not my dad. I'm nothing like him.

And to, um I don't know your screen name. Since it is a square. My dad has only helped me with one fact, and I checked it online before I posted. Yes I messed up the stewardess thing, but obviously you saw the thing on History Channel.
Just, forget about my dad. He's gone for the rest of the night anyways.

Shijuukara
July 17th, 2007, 04:02 PM
And to, um I don't know your screen name. Since it is a square. My dad has only helped me with one fact, and I checked it online before I posted. Yes I messed up the stewardess thing, but obviously you saw the thing on History Channel.
Just, forget about my dad. He's gone for the rest of the night anyways.

Actually, I didn't see it on the History Channel.
Well you're not bringing much of a debate. Seeing as you're posting half-hearted rebuttles.
Try getting the full facts and then this might be a good debate.

Ichigo Roza Mystica
July 17th, 2007, 04:09 PM
Yeah, debates really need facts moreso than "This is true, believe me" and "My Dad says its true" and "Medical students who post on Pokemon boards are dumb" et al

Merzbau
July 17th, 2007, 04:09 PM
Anyone who is anti-gay marriage, please answer my simple question.

We are American citizens, and we have, or at least, deserve, the same equal rights that you do. If you can run and frolic with your partner, and kiss them goodbye in front of your conservative school and not get a hint of talking to from anyone, and then one day marry them, but we can't, doesn't that mean we might not be equal, which would be against the Constitution and the very thing you claim to uphold?

I highlighted the big words that should be recognized.

Allstories
July 17th, 2007, 04:11 PM
Umm, news flash. Gay is not normal. Not at all. And you're saying that all gay people have STDs. So thanks for backing me up, bud.

I didn't say that at all, Captain Strawman. Try reading what I actually wrote.

Also, 'normal' is completely COMPLETELY subjective. Just because it's anomalous or just uncommon doesn't mean it's WRONG. I mean, being an albino or something isn't normal, but that doesn't mean that they can't get married and enjoy the same freedoms that the rest of the world enjoys. Homosexuality has existed for thousands of years (THAT WE KNOW OF, PROBABLY WAY LONGER) and likely isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

Always and Never
July 17th, 2007, 04:21 PM
;2636573']Anyone who is anti-gay marriage, please answer my simple question.

We are American citizens, and we have, or at least, deserve, the same equal rights that you do. If you can run and frolic with your partner, and kiss them goodbye in front of your conservative school and not get a hint of talking to from anyone, and then one day marry them, but we can't, doesn't that mean we might not be equal, which would be against the Constitution and the very thing you claim to uphold?

I highlighted the big words that should be recognized.

People are created equal. Not lifestyles.

The Real AAA
July 17th, 2007, 04:24 PM
All of this complaining needs to stop so peolpe just stop defending on your thoughts and just post if your For, Against, Undecided of gay marriage, simple as that

Allstories
July 17th, 2007, 04:30 PM
People are created equal. Not lifestyles.

I guess this is where we mostly differ, then, because the rest of us are arguing based on the belief that people do not choose to be gay.

Always and Never
July 17th, 2007, 04:38 PM
Tell me one thing that you do not choose in your life. Except for an illness or a crime.
You choose to get up in the morning. You choose to brush your hair.

So when two gay people are having sex is one of them like, "NO! NO! NO! NO!"?

Merzbau
July 17th, 2007, 04:39 PM
People are created equal. Not lifestyles.

Let me ask...have you ever chosen to be straight?

If you have then weren't you inherently at least bisexual to begin with?

Remind me of one other thing.

If it's a choice, why in hell would someone want to choose to be gay? Who really wants to put up with that much hassle throughout life? Can't get married, can't have kids without scientific means, have to deal with bashing, discrimination, and hatred, until the day that bigotry leaves this planet (aka never).

If any person told me they chose to be gay, I would be hard-pressed restraining myself from punching them square in the jaw.

Did I choose to be gay, just so I could have my parents tell me to change, and that if I didn't, they would take my internet away, the door to my room, which means inherently my privacy, and take away the one thing the ability to be in any more plays for the rest of my high school period?

Yeah, man. I so want that.

Thanks a lot. You're ignorant.

[SP]

Ichigo Roza Mystica
July 17th, 2007, 04:40 PM
You don't choose who to find attractive.
Certain things just sit right with you. A certain hair color, a particular body type, a special way someone smiles when they laugh. And, of course, their gender.
You don't DECIDE to find these things attractive, you just DO.

Allstories
July 17th, 2007, 04:42 PM
Tell me one thing that you do not choose in your life. Except for an illness or a crime.
You choose to get up in the morning. You choose to brush your hair.

So when two gay people are having sex is one of them like, "NO! NO! NO! NO!"?

I'm sorry? I don't exactly understand what you're saying.

Always and Never
July 17th, 2007, 04:53 PM
;2636669']

Let me ask...have you ever chosen to be straight?

If you have then weren't you inherently at least bisexual to begin with?

Remind me of one other thing.

If it's a choice, why in hell would someone want to choose to be gay? Who really wants to put up with that much hassle throughout life? Can't get married, can't have kids without scientific means, have to deal with bashing, discrimination, and hatred, until the day that bigotry leaves this planet (aka never).

If any person told me they chose to be gay, I would be hard-pressed restraining myself from punching them square in the jaw.

Did I choose to be gay, just so I could have my parents tell me to change, and that if I didn't, they would take my internet away, the door to my room, which means inherently my privacy, and take away the one thing the ability to be in any more plays for the rest of my high school period?

Yeah, man. I so want that.

Thanks a lot. You're ignorant.

[SP]

No I wasn't born bisexual. I mean, I'm a male, my sexual counterpart is female.

Well, I think I'm about sdone arguing. I've made my point, and seeing how badly gays are treated, makes me think.


That it would totally suck being gay.

Vavavoom ♣
July 17th, 2007, 04:57 PM
That it would totally suck being gay.

No offense people but I agree with him. I wouldn't like to be badly treated.

Ichigo Roza Mystica
July 17th, 2007, 04:57 PM
You've actually made absolutely no point.
For you to believe that homosexuals choose to be gay, you must also admit that straight people choose to be straight.
Which is to say that we're all born bisexual and then choose our sexuality.
And that's silly.
Sexuality isn't a choice.

Vavavoom ♣
July 17th, 2007, 04:58 PM
You've actually made absolutely no point.
For you to believe that homosexuals choose to be gay, you must also admit that straight people choose to be straight.
Which is to say that we're all born bisexual and then choose our sexuality.
And that's silly.
Sexuality isn't a choice.

Where did you get that info? We aren't born Bi Sexual!... -__-'

Ichikool
July 17th, 2007, 04:59 PM
Uh, well, really, I don't really care about fighting over whether or not 'gay' marrige is bad or not. XP

Ichigo Roza Mystica
July 17th, 2007, 05:01 PM
Where did you get that info? We aren't born Bi Sexual!... -__-'

Of course we're not! But if you believe that we choose to be gay, that must mean that we choose to straight, also. Which means that we start out without a preference for either and are thusly blanketly bisexual.

Allstories
July 17th, 2007, 05:02 PM
Where did you get that info? We aren't born Bi Sexual!... -__-'

You misunderstand; Ichigo is saying that it has to be true in order for Scyther's argument to be true.

Vavavoom ♣
July 17th, 2007, 05:03 PM
Of course we're not! But if you believe that we choose to be gay, that must mean that we choose to straight, also. Which means that we start out without a preference for either and are thusly blanketly bisexual.

Agree. ^^ We don't choose to be gay I think... But most of them (I think) are influence by TV Shows, Music, ect..

@ Allstories: Yeah, I misunderstood, I know.

flight
July 17th, 2007, 05:06 PM
That it would totally suck being gay.

Agreed. Nothing can be harsher than just being gay. They would have to live the word in a totally different perspective, this time only to the same gender. Those people will have to endure being gay without anyone actually knowing about it. They would have to make attractive faces...this time at the same gender

It's sucks, and it's creepy. I'm sorta against gay marriage, and I have my reasons. I have more than these, actually.

Allstories
July 17th, 2007, 05:07 PM
seeing how badly gays are treated, makes me think.

That it would totally suck being gay.

Gays are treated badly because of ignorant people like you.

Agree. ^^ We don't choose to be gay I think... But most of them (I think) are influence by TV Shows, Music, ect..

Please tell me that I'm misunderstanding you now, because it sounds like you just said homosexuality is a result of the media. That's not what you meant, is it?

Vavavoom ♣
July 17th, 2007, 05:09 PM
Please tell me that I'm misunderstanding you now, because it sounds like you just said homosexuality is a result of the media. That's not what you meant, is it?

No, no, and no. I didn't said that. I try to say that mostly the Gay People are gay because of some influences they had in their lives. Agree or disagree, I don't really care. ^^

Ichigo Roza Mystica
July 17th, 2007, 05:12 PM
So here's a story. I grew up in a rural part of a country that's mainly indifferent to homosexuals. Still it was a rural area, so the implication was "boys like girls" and not much else. We have two television stations and neither showed appealing content. I didn't get internet until I was 14 and by that stage I already had worked out I didn't get a stuff about a persons gender.
Where's the influence to have made me the way I am, in that environment? :P

Vavavoom ♣
July 17th, 2007, 05:16 PM
So here's a story. I grew up in a rural part of a country that's mainly indifferent to homosexuals. Still it was a rural area, so the implication was "boys like girls" and not much else. We have two television stations and neither showed appealing content. I didn't get internet until I was 14 and by that stage I already had worked out I didn't get a stuff about a persons gender.
Where's the influence to have made me the way I am, in that environment? :P

<.< I'm not talking about every Gays you know. I said " Mostly of the Gays " are influence by various stuff in their lives.

Merzbau
July 17th, 2007, 05:19 PM
Flame wars start because of people like you. Stop it.

No offense, hon, but it was started longgg before he said that. Not really a flame war though, just more like a heated debate. Which I think is fine and dandy. Probably why the mods haven't closed this yet.

And in response to the other thing said...

I grew up in a home where jokes about gay people were cracked on a regular basis, and outright hatred for the idea is expressed, that they are sinners and going to hell for the things they "chose" to do.

Basically, it's a life of repressing the emotions and thoughts that make you who you are at your very core. Once I realized I was doing it, I stopped. And things all started coming clearer.

I turn out to be bisexual.

So...yeah.

At least I know I didn't have influences to make me that way.

flight
July 17th, 2007, 05:29 PM
;2636847']

No offense, hon, but it was started longgg before he said that. Not really a flame war though, just more like a heated debate. Which I think is fine and dandy. Probably why the mods haven't closed this yet.



Well, it doesn't really matter, the point is, the flame posts need to stop now before not the mods, but the S-mods and up get over here. You definitly don't want that to happen, and they come whenever drama like this starts.

It's fine to disagree, as long as you don't call people ignorant(not saying you did) and other stuff for it.

EDIT: No offense taken and stuff :3 Just a little worried...

Ichigo Roza Mystica
July 17th, 2007, 05:31 PM
I honestly have yet to see flaming yet, so I think you're over-reacting.
Homosexuality is a touchy topic and most people have been pretty well behaved imo.

Momoko
July 17th, 2007, 05:54 PM
Hope nobody takes this the wrong way but i am totally against it.
Maybe they DO love each,and maybe it's NOT their fault they were (maybe) born that way,but it is still wrong. Men should like women,and women should like men,that is the way i think it should be. Why else would there be Adam and Eve and not Adam and Bob? :laugh::laugh::laugh:

Merzbau
July 17th, 2007, 05:59 PM
Hope nobody takes this the wrong way but i am totally against it.
Maybe they DO love each,and maybe it's NOT their fault they were (maybe) born that way,but it is still wrong. Men should like women,and women should like men,that is the way i think it should be. Why else would there be Adam and Eve and not Adam and Bob? :laugh::laugh::laugh:

I know you're not trying to be offensive, but it still strikes me kind of bad.

Denying who you are, and loving the opposite gender, isn't that kind of a bad thing to do?

Ichigo Roza Mystica
July 17th, 2007, 06:01 PM
You know, if it were Adam and Steve, maybe we'd never have been cast out of the garden of eden? A boy wouldn't have fallen for a measly apple XD

Momoko
July 17th, 2007, 06:07 PM
;2637005']I know you're not trying to be offensive, but it still strikes me kind of bad.

Denying who you are, and loving the opposite gender, isn't that kind of a bad thing to do?


I dont completely understand what you mean,but i have my own right to say im against it,and i wasn't trying to be offensive,in fact i have a gay cousin,just because i dont particuarly like him doesn't mean i don't like them im just....against them getting married is all

Hope this doesnt give me a bad rep

Merzbau
July 17th, 2007, 06:08 PM
Yes, you totally have the right to say what you believe. I will .never. question that as long as I live.

But I'm just saying...

Say, a guy, is born gay. Wouldn't forcing him to like girls his entire life be in direct contradiction with who he really is?

That's all I meant.

And it's cool, mate, no harm done, I'm just giving the counterpoint. :]

Momoko
July 17th, 2007, 06:18 PM
Thank you for clearing that up! :classic: I feel better now...hmm i don't see many people saying their against it but when i look at the poll it shows quite a few people ARE against it....makes me wonder if their against it but theres so many people who arent against it so they pretend their for it...:paranoid: just wondeirng....

sims796
July 17th, 2007, 06:26 PM
I don't really care. I'm not homosexual, so it doesn't concern me. However, if there ever was a petition handed to me, I would vote yes. I say why not? It won't hurt me, and I don't have to pay extra in order for gays to get married, so what the hey? Unless gays getting married hurts my chances of getting married with a girl, I don't care. If I had to go to a ballet to vote, as I said, I would vote yes, but I wouldn't wake up early to vote. If I have such a problem with gay marrage, I just won't marry someone of the same sex. Doesn't mean you can't. And I support that right. If I can marry whomever I like, why can't gays?

Weatherman, Kiyoshi
July 17th, 2007, 06:29 PM
Thank you for clearing that up! :classic: I feel better now...hmm i don't see many people saying their against it but when i look at the poll it shows quite a few people ARE against it....makes me wonder if their against it but theres so many people who arent against it so they pretend their for it...:paranoid: just wondeirng....

Hm...
Pretend to be for gay marriage?
Very interesting thought, don't you think?

---

<.< I'm not talking about every Gays you know. I said " Mostly of the Gays " are influence by various stuff in their lives.

Various stuff?

Hm... what kind of stuff?
Waffles?
Grass?


... Tuna?

any way you could clairify?

Always and Never
July 17th, 2007, 06:36 PM
I don't really care. I'm not homosexual, so it doesn't concern me. However, if there ever was a petition handed to me, I would vote yes. I say why not? It won't hurt me, and I don't have to pay extra in order for gays to get married, so what the hey? Unless gays getting married hurts my chances of getting married with a girl, I don't care. If I had to go to a ballet to vote, as I said, I would vote yes, but I wouldn't wake up early to vote. If I have such a problem with gay marrage, I just won't marry someone of the same sex. Doesn't mean you can't. And I support that right. If I can marry whomever I like, why can't gays?

Health care costs. You would be paying more.

sims796
July 17th, 2007, 06:41 PM
Well, I'm still for it. Like I said, I ain't joining a parade to support em', but I'll gladly pay a bit extra in order to protect America's freedom. Freedom of choice. If I can marry, why can't they?

Health care is bound to happen. What can we do. So long as they don't cripple my wallet, don't care.

Corona
July 17th, 2007, 06:49 PM
I myself am glad that there are more people for then against it. I just wanna know if Gays will ever be able to get married. If so then ...YAY if not I will move to Canada,Get Married, Come back to the U.S which is perfectly legal. Or just stay there because Canada has free health care and is a neutral counrty when it comes to war. As for america.... Against Gay Marriage,EXPENSIVE Health Care and shots everything that we dont like (glares a the sher stupidity that surrounds President Bush's being >.>) If we had a gay president oh what a wonder thatll do for this country. You know unless they outlaw ummm... Normal marriage. I for one would be FURIOUS even though I plan on getting married to another man if possible

sims796
July 17th, 2007, 06:59 PM
Humph. If we ever have a homosexual president, well, thatl'l be the day. Not that I'm saying I don't want it, far from it. Just, until we wake up, that will never happen.

But we do seem to be evolving. There is a woman & african-american both running. Despite me being black/panimanian, I'll still go for Hillary, she has a better record.

But seriously, I would love to see a gay canidite. So long as he's/she's a good leader.

Allstories
July 17th, 2007, 07:09 PM
Health care costs. You would be paying more.

Health care costs? That justifies bigotry? How stingy can you get?

sims796
July 17th, 2007, 07:19 PM
I wouldn't mind paying, as long as its not astronomical. I don't care for it, but I don't believe that they should be stopped. What do I care, it doesn't effect me. I'd vote yes, but I don't mind waiting in back of the line for the polls.

Asura Nirosuki
July 17th, 2007, 09:26 PM
I voted For Gay Marriages,
Love has nothing to do with gender.

Astinus
July 17th, 2007, 09:55 PM
I hate work for making miss out on so many posts.

Health care costs. You would be paying more.
How? Why? What are you talking about?

I'm just asking a simple question: Do you think that all gays are going to be on government aid for health care? Every last single gay person born? Because to me, that is what your saying. Perhaps you are not coming across clear over the Internet, and you mean something entirely different.

Momoko
July 17th, 2007, 10:30 PM
well im still against it,nothing so far has changes my mind. But yes i do believe people are pretending to be for gay marrige but secretly vote against it. They feel agraid that since olmost nobody here is against it,they will be pushed around& stuff....something to think about,im sure nobody here is gonna judge people....

Ichigo Roza Mystica
July 17th, 2007, 10:51 PM
That is honestly the most pathetic idea I've ever heard.
"Oh, people MUST be PRETENDING to be for it. Surely nobody could REALLY want it to be allowed!"

Always and Never
July 17th, 2007, 11:10 PM
I agree. But I dont know why wou bolded the word the. It would of been better if you bolded pathetic. But it was a pretty dumb idea.

The thing that comes down to it, is if we have pro-gay judges or con-gay judges.

It wouldn't matter if 95% of all people wanted gay marriage. If you had a con-gay judge, there would be no gay marriage.

I just read homosexuals in some middle-east countries get their reproduction organs mutilated. Which is horrible, but that could be a possible reason why gay people should act normal.

Because in some countries they look down upon it as the ultimate evil.

The Real AAA
July 18th, 2007, 12:22 AM
I agree. But I dont know why wou bolded the word the. It would of been better if you bolded pathetic. But it was a pretty dumb idea.

The thing that comes down to it, is if we have pro-gay judges or con-gay judges.

It wouldn't matter if 95% of all people wanted gay marriage. If you had a con-gay judge, there would be no gay marriage.

I just read homosexuals in some middle-east countries get their reproduction organs mutilated. Which is horrible, but that could be a possible reason why gay people should act normal.

Because in some countries they look down upon it as the ultimate evil.

This place is not for debating but if this continues there's going to be a major flame war

Ichigo Roza Mystica
July 18th, 2007, 12:24 AM
Say it out loud with me, and you'll see I just enunciated it like the teenage girl I am XP~

So you're basically saying that because people in less civilized countries are prejudice, that we should be the same, hey? They also subjugate women there and give them no rights. We should use that as a guideline and have our women just be subservient to the male population too, huh?

Signomi
July 18th, 2007, 01:46 AM
Alright guys, I've been observing this thread for a while and I now see more discussion brewing out of this topic, it's becoming less of a poll right now. So I'll go ahead and move this thread to Other Chat, feel free to carry on any discussion there.

Also just a heads up, remember to take caution with your replies. We don't want anything leading to an out of hand argument.

~Moved

Tina
July 18th, 2007, 04:16 AM
I'm against it.

It frustrates me to see people keep talking about "love" and if they are in "love" than they should get married.

Don't you know the entire reason why they hold rallies and parades about this crap? It's all about money, and it has nothing to do with love, although they like to sugar coat it. In case you didn't know, a homosexual couple with a civil union cannot claim life insurance or any type of marital benefit from their spouse. For example, when their spouse dies, all "spouse right" items will be first given either to parents (if living) or children (if had), and when neither exist, they are given to the closest family member (sibling, cousin, etc.).

I'm sure that's why I'm against it, not because of the natural reasons why not, but because for some reason these "fights" for "gay love" are nothing about love at all.

Actually, a really good example of things that would probably happen if gay marriage was allowed is that new movie coming out with Adam Sandler and the guy from King of Queens. They marry each other to get benefits. Frankly, I'm sure straight people do it too, but why worsen the situation.

Everything that xXscytherXx has said I agree with. I'm not going to restate what he's already said.


Adding this: A lot of people fake gay. Not saying they all do, but right now society thinks it's "cool" and suddenly there's all the more gay people out.

Ichigo Roza Mystica
July 18th, 2007, 04:36 AM
No, you're wrong. It's not about money, it's about equal rights by governmental law. For example, the right for a spouse to not have to testify in court is one that ,at the moment, homosexuals are denied.

sims796
July 18th, 2007, 05:21 AM
I'm against it.

It frustrates me to see people keep talking about "love" and if they are in "love" than they should get married.

Don't you know the entire reason why they hold rallies and parades about this crap? It's all about money, and it has nothing to do with love, although they like to sugar coat it. In case you didn't know, a homosexual couple with a civil union cannot claim life insurance or any type of marital benefit from their spouse. For example, when their spouse dies, all "spouse right" items will be first given either to parents (if living) or children (if had), and when neither exist, they are given to the closest family member (sibling, cousin, etc.).

I'm sure that's why I'm against it, not because of the natural reasons why not, but because for some reason these "fights" for "gay love" are nothing about love at all.

Actually, a really good example of things that would probably happen if gay marriage was allowed is that new movie coming out with Adam Sandler and the guy from King of Queens. They marry each other to get benefits. Frankly, I'm sure straight people do it too, but why worsen the situation.

Everything that xXscytherXx has said I agree with. I'm not going to restate what he's already said.


Adding this: A lot of people fake gay. Not saying they all do, but right now society thinks it's "cool" and suddenly there's all the more gay people out.

So you're saying ALL gay people do that? There is no such thing as a couple in love, eh? I would have to disagree. That's not fair to those that are in love. You just called all gays single-minded money grubbers.If what you say is true, then straight people shouldn't get married either.

And why can't they get married with full benifits like anyone else? You just stated that they have less rights than everyone else.

xXscytherXx didn't give a valid reason other than health cost. He also called gays freaks by saying they should act "normal".

Vavavoom ♣
July 18th, 2007, 05:40 AM
I'm against it.

It frustrates me to see people keep talking about "love" and if they are in "love" than they should get married.

Don't you know the entire reason why they hold rallies and parades about this crap? It's all about money, and it has nothing to do with love, although they like to sugar coat it. In case you didn't know, a homosexual couple with a civil union cannot claim life insurance or any type of marital benefit from their spouse. For example, when their spouse dies, all "spouse right" items will be first given either to parents (if living) or children (if had), and when neither exist, they are given to the closest family member (sibling, cousin, etc.).

I'm sure that's why I'm against it, not because of the natural reasons why not, but because for some reason these "fights" for "gay love" are nothing about love at all.

Actually, a really good example of things that would probably happen if gay marriage was allowed is that new movie coming out with Adam Sandler and the guy from King of Queens. They marry each other to get benefits. Frankly, I'm sure straight people do it too, but why worsen the situation.

Everything that xXscytherXx has said I agree with. I'm not going to restate what he's already said.


Adding this: A lot of people fake gay. Not saying they all do, but right now society thinks it's "cool" and suddenly there's all the more gay people out.


I agree with you too. Everything you said, I'm 100% with it.

sims796
July 18th, 2007, 06:08 AM
But how? You're saying that all gays care about money. Straight people should not get married either, because they married for benifits as well. All your saying is gays have less rights, and deserves it. Please explain that. If they don't have spousal rights, then thats shows they have less rights. And you guys advocate that.

I don't care about the gay thing, or even whether they love or not. Its about the rights. If they don't have rights, then NO AMERICAN DESERVE THAT RIGHT. Just like other minorities have rights.

All you guys are proving is that you are homophobes-gay haters. I am not calling you this, not at all. But your reasons are sorta saying that. So far, I've seen some say (all combined from different people) they are greedy, money-grubbing freaks. Thats not right. Not one bit. There is no real reason that has been proven other than the bible, and I try to stay away from religion.

Weatherman, Kiyoshi
July 18th, 2007, 06:22 AM
I'm against it.

It frustrates me to see people keep talking about "love" and if they are in "love" than they should get married.

Don't you know the entire reason why they hold rallies and parades about this crap? It's all about money, and it has nothing to do with love, although they like to sugar coat it. In case you didn't know, a homosexual couple with a civil union cannot claim life insurance or any type of marital benefit from their spouse. For example, when their spouse dies, all "spouse right" items will be first given either to parents (if living) or children (if had), and when neither exist, they are given to the closest family member (sibling, cousin, etc.).

I'm sure that's why I'm against it, not because of the natural reasons why not, but because for some reason these "fights" for "gay love" are nothing about love at all.

Actually, a really good example of things that would probably happen if gay marriage was allowed is that new movie coming out with Adam Sandler and the guy from King of Queens. They marry each other to get benefits. Frankly, I'm sure straight people do it too, but why worsen the situation.

Everything that xXscytherXx has said I agree with. I'm not going to restate what he's already said.


Adding this: A lot of people fake gay. Not saying they all do, but right now society thinks it's "cool" and suddenly there's all the more gay people out.

It's a MOVIE.
Does that make it true?

"People" like you and xXscytherXx make reasons agaisnt it because how the media protrays them as. As Allstories said.
Media is NOT always right about Gays and what they do.

Your just making it sound as people become gay just so they can get money.

"Love" is the word your saying is nonexistant.
What you said was nobody but straights could "love" another person.
How is that possible if "love" is nonexistant?

Edit:
That a better word?

sims796
July 18th, 2007, 06:28 AM
It's a MOVIE.
Does that make it true?

Homophobes like you and xXscytherXx make reasons agaisnt it because how the media protrays them as. As Allstories said.
Media is NOT always right about Gays and what they do.

Your just making it sound as people become gay just so they can get money.

"Love" is the word your saying is nonexistant.
What you said was nobody but straights could love another person.
Is that true?

Please be careful what you say. I don't want this to become a flame war. It starts with name-calling.

But I agree 100% with what you said. Their points are showing that they might be homophobes, but you shouldn't outright say it. Although they are showing it. I agree with what you said about them & the media, but we gotta try to avoid flaming.

Allstories
July 18th, 2007, 06:36 AM
Actually, a really good example of things that would probably happen if gay marriage was allowed is that new movie coming out with Adam Sandler and the guy from King of Queens. They marry each other to get benefits. Frankly, I'm sure straight people do it too, but why worsen the situation.

Adding this: A lot of people fake gay. Not saying they all do, but right now society thinks it's "cool" and suddenly there's all the more gay people out.

Oh my god. Who are you to say that AN ENTIRE POPULATION of people would do something like that for MONEY? How dare you make such an accusation. How dare you. Homosexuality is NOT A FAD. IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE ARE JUST 'DOING TO BE COOL'. IT HAS EXISTED SINCE BEFORE THE DAWN OF CIVILIZATION. It's been observed in ANIMALS for god's sake. And you're telling me that you would be so callous as to deny people the freedom they deserve BECAUSE SOMEONE SOMEWHERE MIGHT ABUSE THAT FREEDOM? WELL, GOLLY GEE, WE BETTER BAN INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. THAT COULD LEAD TO SPOUSAL ABUSE, YOU KNOW. THEM NEGROES SURE CAN BE AGGRESSIVE, AMIRITE? AAAARGH YOU ARE NOT BEING RIGHTEOUS. YOU ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY. YOU ARE JUST. AFRAID. OF GAY PEOPLE.

sims796
July 18th, 2007, 06:43 AM
Please calm down. And watch your language. I know you were proving a point. I know you was being sarcastic. And I know you don't mean it. But I come to this site hoping that I could avoid any sort of language that even points to racism. I'm not saying anything bad about you, and I agree. But don't say negroes on this site again. It's never right. I have enough of that outside my building.

I do agree with everything else you said.

Weatherman, Kiyoshi
July 18th, 2007, 06:52 AM
Oh my god. Who are you to say that AN ENTIRE POPULATION of people would do something like that for MONEY? How dare you make such an accusation. How dare you. Homosexuality is NOT A FAD. IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE ARE JUST 'DOING TO BE COOL'. IT HAS EXISTED SINCE BEFORE THE DAWN OF CIVILIZATION. It's been observed in ANIMALS for god's sake. And you're telling me that you would be so callous as to deny people the freedom they deserve BECAUSE SOMEONE SOMEWHERE MIGHT ABUSE THAT FREEDOM? WELL, GOLLY GEE, WE BETTER BAN INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. THAT COULD LEAD TO SPOUSAL ABUSE, YOU KNOW. THEM NEGROES SURE CAN BE AGGRESSIVE, AMIRITE? AAAARGH YOU ARE NOT BEING RIGHTEOUS. YOU ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY. YOU ARE JUST. AFRAID. OF GAY PEOPLE.


I second this.
We've had Gays and Bisexuals living on earth for some time now, have they done anything bad that had to do with they're sexuality?

Not anything I've heard of.

Akio123
July 18th, 2007, 07:12 AM
I'm against it.

It frustrates me to see people keep talking about "love" and if they are in "love" than they should get married.

Don't you know the entire reason why they hold rallies and parades about this crap? It's all about money, and it has nothing to do with love, although they like to sugar coat it. In case you didn't know, a homosexual couple with a civil union cannot claim life insurance or any type of marital benefit from their spouse. For example, when their spouse dies, all "spouse right" items will be first given either to parents (if living) or children (if had), and when neither exist, they are given to the closest family member (sibling, cousin, etc.).

I'm sure that's why I'm against it, not because of the natural reasons why not, but because for some reason these "fights" for "gay love" are nothing about love at all.

Actually, a really good example of things that would probably happen if gay marriage was allowed is that new movie coming out with Adam Sandler and the guy from King of Queens. They marry each other to get benefits. Frankly, I'm sure straight people do it too, but why worsen the situation.

Everything that xXscytherXx has said I agree with. I'm not going to restate what he's already said.


Adding this: A lot of people fake gay. Not saying they all do, but right now society thinks it's "cool" and suddenly there's all the more gay people out.

I do not mean to offend:

It's NOT about money it's about how people deserve equal rights. Your using the basis if your arguement on a comdey. Whats more its a movie that saterizes what people will do for money. There is not underlying message that say "OMFG GAYS WANT MONEY!!!!111" Also, in this country gays are tax paying citizens that contribute to society like ANYONE else. They deserve the same civil liberties as anyone else. I mean this shouldn't be an issue. Whats more how do you know "alot of gay people are fake?"

I've said my piece thank you.

sims796
July 18th, 2007, 07:38 AM
Why did you say 'I don't mean to offend'? You didn't offend anyone at all. You said it quite honestly.

Drummershuff
July 18th, 2007, 07:40 AM
Oh my god. Who are you to say that AN ENTIRE POPULATION of people would do something like that for MONEY? How dare you make such an accusation. How dare you. Homosexuality is NOT A FAD. IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE ARE JUST 'DOING TO BE COOL'. IT HAS EXISTED SINCE BEFORE THE DAWN OF CIVILIZATION. It's been observed in ANIMALS for god's sake. And you're telling me that you would be so callous as to deny people the freedom they deserve BECAUSE SOMEONE SOMEWHERE MIGHT ABUSE THAT FREEDOM? WELL, GOLLY GEE, WE BETTER BAN INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE. THAT COULD LEAD TO SPOUSAL ABUSE, YOU KNOW. THEM NEGROES SURE CAN BE AGGRESSIVE, AMIRITE? AAAARGH YOU ARE NOT BEING RIGHTEOUS. YOU ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE GOOD OF THE COUNTRY. YOU ARE JUST. AFRAID. OF GAY PEOPLE.

Yeah, guys, just cool down a little with your replies, please...

sims796
July 18th, 2007, 07:52 AM
Well, tried to warn...

Seriously, we all have very good reasons why they should get married, I want to hear a non-bigoted reason why they shouldn't. This is a debate, after all.

Richard Lynch
July 18th, 2007, 07:55 AM
I'm against it.

It frustrates me to see people keep talking about "love" and if they are in "love" than they should get married.

Don't you know the entire reason why they hold rallies and parades about this crap? It's all about money, and it has nothing to do with love, although they like to sugar coat it. In case you didn't know, a homosexual couple with a civil union cannot claim life insurance or any type of marital benefit from their spouse. For example, when their spouse dies, all "spouse right" items will be first given either to parents (if living) or children (if had), and when neither exist, they are given to the closest family member (sibling, cousin, etc.).

I'm sure that's why I'm against it, not because of the natural reasons why not, but because for some reason these "fights" for "gay love" are nothing about love at all.

Actually, a really good example of things that would probably happen if gay marriage was allowed is that new movie coming out with Adam Sandler and the guy from King of Queens. They marry each other to get benefits. Frankly, I'm sure straight people do it too, but why worsen the situation.

Everything that xXscytherXx has said I agree with. I'm not going to restate what he's already said.


Adding this: A lot of people fake gay. Not saying they all do, but right now society thinks it's "cool" and suddenly there's all the more gay people out.

Sure more gays are coming out, but not because it's a "fad"; pre-torn jeans are a fad. Leg warmers are a fad. Spikes hair is a fad. The reason there are more gays now than before is that people are realizing what they are isn't a bad thing, and that it's okay for them to be gay, instead of pretending to be straight just so they aren't ostracized. In fact, I think it's the complete opposite of what you said; we live in a country where gays are opposed, considered "evil" and "sinful", and relieved of their personal freedom to do what other people do. Sound like something people would enjoy as a recreational activity?

And don't give me the crap about wanting money. Most of the people who oppose gays and gay marriage support a government and political party that was built on greed and the idea of a economical hierarchy that puts them at the top, and you and I at the bottom. It's a complete contradiction, especially in a moral religious sense.

So if you're really against the "benefits" a couple gets from marriage, why not support the banning of this security issue altogether? Maybe then Anna Nicole Smith wouldn't have gotten all of her money, or any other Gold Digger for that matter. If you're against a little part of something, you might as well be against the whole picture.

Oh, and: that movie... is a movie. I don't expect anyone in real life to jump from a building into a helicopter, so why should I expect this to hold water? When it comes to a debate about politics and social norms, Hollywood (much like religious churches) should never EVER be brought into the formula. Period.

What you wrote offends me, not as a liberal, but as a human being. I couldn't imagine how offended a homosexual would be if they read what you wrote.

Congratulations; on a scale of 1 to 10 on the offensive meter, I think you just hit a 73.

sims796
July 18th, 2007, 07:59 AM
So apparently, there is no non-bigoted responses as of why gays should not be married. Nicely said Richard, but now I have to find out what liberal means :laugh:

What she wrote is a backwards step for mankind.

Akio123
July 18th, 2007, 08:09 AM
I completely agree with you. I mean people act as if gays are some evil race trying to destroy the world when they want equal rights.

Richard Lynch
July 18th, 2007, 08:11 AM
So apparently, there is no non-bigoted responses as of why gays should not be married. Nicely said Richard, but now I have to find out what liberal means :laugh:

What she wrote is a backwards step for mankind.

Precisely!

There is no scientific or, more importantly, logical reason as to why gays should not be allowed to get married and have the same benefits as soccer parents that carry their babies around in a sling and pay for tic-tacs with a platinum credit card.

Any reason that gays should have their freedom taken away is either political, or religious. And politics has always been corrupt. But in this case, it works perfectly in sync with religion. Religious people who view homosexuality as a sin are afraid (of what, I'm not too sure... most likely that if they live in an immoral society, they'll be banished to Hell), and politics plays off of this. It's the same deal with terrorism: people will ALWAYS be willing to give up a bit of their personal freedom for the illusion of security and safety. It's how dictatorships and tyrannies are born. And, to me, that is the scariest thing about this whole debate. Because once gay marriage is made illegal, then what next?

haha, and "liberal", in politics, means "moving forward", and is generally a term saved for Democrats. Trying new things, as opposed to Conservatives (mostly Republican) who believe in values and tradition, both milked by religion, and both usually opposed to change, which generally leads to betterment of the system.