# what do you guys think about gay marriage??



## War (May 16, 2011)

Hey guys, just wanted to know what you all thought about this. we were talking about it in class today and I was just shocked/disgusted by some people's opinions on it. please post and let us all knw what you think!


----------



## Recorderdude (May 16, 2011)

If someone's a gay or lesbian individual who mutually loves another gay or lesbian individual, I see no problem in them expressing their love in the same way straight couples do, including marriage.


----------



## emigre (May 16, 2011)

I'm Pro LGBT marriage. To me marriage is a legal service and as such should be open to all.


----------



## KingVamp (May 16, 2011)

personuser said:
			
		

> If someone's a gay or lesbian individual who mutually loves another gay or lesbian individual, I see no problem in them expressing their love in the same way straight couples do.


That and it really isn't my business to stop them or anything like that. Their life, not hurting anyone... so yea.


----------



## cwstjdenobs (May 16, 2011)

I agree with it no less than I agree with straight marriage.


----------



## Jamstruth (May 16, 2011)

Personally I don't care. I understand people's objections but here's my view on it.

If the word "marriage" is going to be imprinted in law its religious ties should be irrelevent. Since we have marriage as something in law rather than something in religion, it seems terrible to me that homosexual partnerships should be denied this.
Here in Britain our workaround to avoid annoying the religious people is to have gay marriage known as "Civil Partnership". It grants exactly the same rights as married people have. I think this is fair and alright but we still have that "marriage" thing in our law. A man and a woman get married, they don't get a Civil Partnership. I think that if there's going to be all this religious debate about it we should have it that the standard, law thing is a Civil Partnership. Marriage then becomes a religious tie and not a legal one and people stop complaining as much about how its against the Bible's definition of marriage. Heterosexuals and Homosexuals then have the same rights in law and there's not as much whining about it. It then becomes a religious matter about the definition of a marriage.

There are many married Atheist couples who I'm sure don't care about the religious ties that the name of their partnership has and wouldn't care that if it was just called a partnership to avoid religious ties. If you do want that religious tie then you get married in a Church but in law its still a partnership the same as any.

Problem is that this would be seen as a downgrade of marriage by many people, even those non-religious so my cold logic probably has no ground to stand on.


----------



## DarkShinigami (May 16, 2011)

wasnt there a thread like this a while back any way

i support i believe love comes in all genders if a guy loves a guy well guess what thats the shape and size of their love


----------



## Ikki (May 16, 2011)

I'm not into the whole marriage thing since I don't think a paper/a ceremony is needed to be bonded with someone (oddly enough I really want to marry my gf, as skeptical I am about it and as young as I am)

But if you're gay and want to marry your couple, by all means go ahead, it's your life. You're another person like I am and you have the same rights everyone has.

Every time I for some reason watch a video which is related to homosexuality and check the comments I find myself severely disgusted. Also, I found spanish speaking comunities to be much more homophobic than english speaking ones, can't say that as a fact though.


----------



## MFDC12 (May 16, 2011)

Oh man, another LGBT thread. I expect this to be locked fairly quick.

100% for it, with LGBT rights/anti-discrimination/adoption/etc.
But you are not going to find many gay people who are against those either


----------



## cwstjdenobs (May 16, 2011)

MFDC12 said:
			
		

> But you are not going to find many gay people who are against those either



May be a generational thing, but my gay uncle is well against gay marriage. This is me badly paraphrasing him: You have pretty much the same rights as a married couple/civil partnership by just living together and declaring that you are living as a couple other here. I think he thinks that should be good enough, and gay people shouldn't want to emulate a straighter lifestyle.

Not my views, though it does make a strange sort of sense. I honestly think he's a bit doolaly.


----------



## Panzer Tacticer (May 16, 2011)

I have NO trouble with the homosexual lifestyle, and could easily strip at the pool in the men's change room beside a gay man and it wouldn't bug me if he looked.

Marriage though, if you mean the in a church sort, I often wonder, do they seriously not mind that religion spits on them and their existence?
Sure some gays might wish to be religious, but, isn't a gay person in a church a bit like a black guy wanting to join the clan?

I support them having the option to marry as a civil marriage though. Why not? There's no reason to think being a married couple that is both genders makes those persons 'better' or more 'deserving' of a wedded union. I have seen moooooore than enough persons married, that are male female, that have gone on to become parents and one can only think ' for the sake of the race, have them sterilized!'.

So I have no beef with homosexual marriage.


----------



## MFDC12 (May 16, 2011)

cwstjdenobs said:
			
		

> MFDC12 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not exactly.
There are quite a few denominations that are pretty accepting of homosexuality, not to mention a lot of church's 'hate' the sex part, not the actual connection (like love) between two men or two women.


----------



## machomuu (May 16, 2011)

Well as humans we're animals.  If other animals can be homosexual and not be segregated and have the same rights, I don't see why it should be any different for humans.


----------



## Rogue_Syst3m (May 16, 2011)

i think everyone has the right to be miserable


----------



## Uchiha Obito (May 16, 2011)

As far as I see it, gay marriage isn't that big of a deal. Still, like previously said, it should have another name... 

Since no gays try to do something with me, I'm ok with them... That's why I don't get drunk, there's more gays per group (1 in 4 people) now than there was 10 years before... I'm scared that my hole could get larger :S

So, gay marriage no, gay *insert name here*, yes.

EDIT: This is my opinion, I except respect from you guys, since I respect other ideals too.


----------



## m3rox (May 16, 2011)

Sounds pretty gay if you ask me.

Nah, let them be happy.  They're allowed to date and stuff, why not allow them to marry?  What's so different about a gay couple compared to a straight couple?


----------



## Uchiha Obito (May 16, 2011)

4 balls or 4 holes? xD


----------



## BORTZ (May 16, 2011)

eh its gay. 

I dont really care. the less i hear about it though, the better.


----------



## KingVamp (May 16, 2011)

Goten said:
			
		

> As far as I see it, gay marriage isn't that big of a deal. Still, like previously said, it should have another name...
> 
> Since no gays try to do something with me, I'm ok with them... That's why I don't get drunk, there's more gays per group (1 in 4 people) now than there was 10 years before... I'm scared that my hole could get larger :S
> 
> ...


What? Even if you called it different, it still the same thing/meaning. Imo it pointless to do so. 

And a girl can leave you with a bigger hole too.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Imo you shouldn't get drunk regardless.


----------



## Rayder (May 16, 2011)

I'm only uncomfortable with gay people when/if they are checking me out suggestively, talking loudly about their gay excursions in public, displaying or flaunting their affections for one another in an over-the-top manner.  But that's all it is, an uncomfortable feeling on my part, I don't let it dictate my actions.  

But on the flip-side, I would imagine that if I was talking loudly and saying stuff like, "My girlfriend and I were in bed together and we...blah, blah, blah", or displaying my affections for my girlfriend in public in an over-the-top manner or looking at a gay couple with contempt or hatred, ect. that a gay person would be just as disgusted to see/hear it as I am to hear about their personal stuff. So I just don't do it.

But you know, there are some people (particularly older people) who take offense to ANY public displays of affection, regardless of gender preference.  Unfortunately, those kinds of people tend to be "in power" and make more of and issue out of all this than it deserves.  Really, as far as I'm concerned, gay marriage is a non-issue and shouldn't be such a heated or publicly argued debate, especially in this day and age when people are supposed to be more enlightened and tolerant than we ever have been before in previous decades.  It is the deplorable reality that there are many people who are neither enlightened, nor tolerant.

The ONLY time I take serious offense to a gay person's actions is if they try to hit on me.  Even then, I try to be respectable and let them know I'm straight and I would appreciate it if they would stop.  But if they KNOW I'm not gay and continue to hit on me anyway, then there's a problem.  But only then.  I would expect a gay person to be similarly offended if I kept trying to hook them up with the opposite sex, even though I KNEW they were gay. 

Mutual respect, you know?  Just agree to disagree about gender selection and let it go, keep your potentially offensive feelings and/or actions to yourself.  What a gay person does in the privacy of their lives is of no concern of mine. Who am I to deny/debate their chance at happiness in marriage if that is what they choose to do?  If they want to get married, that's none of my business and I can only hope they are genuinely happy with their decision. 

Let me refer once again to a song by Joe Walsh:


Spoiler



[youtube]Fzvkqq9BOdI[/youtube]


Try to think of all disagreements in the manner that song was intended and everyone will get along much better.  Look at it as a lesson to be learned and realize that we ALL forget that lesson at one time or another. ALL of us do. No one sees eye-to-eye on every subject, that's why we have so many debates and arguments in the world about every little thing.  One can only TRY to be above all the petty hate and bickering. Gay or straight, black or white, rich or poor, there are two sides to every story.

I hope everyone who reads this understands how objective I was trying to be about this ridiculously sensitive subject. I will not apologize for being honest, but I am truly sorry if anything I said here offends anyone, as that was not my intention.


----------



## Vulpes Abnocto (May 16, 2011)

Rogue_Syst3m said:
			
		

> i think everyone has the right to be miserable




^This is becoming a cliche', but it's exactly right. 
Gay and lesbian people are not 'lesser' simply for what they find attractive in a mate. 
And it's time they were no longer treated that way.


----------



## War (May 17, 2011)

Oh okay. I guess you guys are with most of my class then. I guess it's alright, everyone is entitled to their opinion (as wrong as it may be LOL...)


----------



## azntiger (May 17, 2011)

I agree with Gay Marriage. It's not right to judge someone by their sexuality.


----------



## darkreaperofdrea (May 17, 2011)

i agree too,it's just like heterosexual marriage,just two dicks or two vagina's involved


----------



## The Pi (May 17, 2011)

I've never seen any problem with it.

The idea that someone is denied the act to do anything because of who they're attracted to is terrible.

I'm against the idea of marriage as a whole though but since no many people find the piece of paper so important, I won't argue about it.

Fun fact: I'm watching that episode of South Park just now about Lemmiwinks and Mr. Slaves ass.


----------



## Densetsu (May 17, 2011)

Rayder and Vulpes beat me to the punch.  

Also, if an LGBT civil rights movement of the same magnitude as the one experienced in the US during the 60's ever occurs in our lifetime, I'd march on Washington with them.  No homo 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






			
				War said:
			
		

> Oh okay. I guess you guys are with most of my class then. I guess it's alright, everyone is entitled to their opinion (as wrong as it may be LOL...)


A majority of your class and just about everyone on this topic so far agrees on something that you don't, and we're all wrong?  

I _guess_.  

Like you said, you're entitled to your opinion (as wrong as it may be).


----------



## DeadLocked (May 17, 2011)

Gay marriage shouldn't even be an issue to discuss in my opinion.
We're in 2011 and there's still debate over two people getting married because of their gender.
It's their business isn't it? Does it affect you, if not then it's none of your concern to be honest.

Same goes for ethnicity, religion/non-religion, gender, nationality debates.

tl:dr people need to let go of these ridiculous anti-minority views, especially when they don't affect them in the slightest.


----------



## The Catboy (May 17, 2011)

Anyone be shocked on my option? Well this might shock you. I do not support the term "Gay Marriage." I support just marriage. I find no reason to label it just because it happens to be between 2 people of the same gender, I believe it should just be the same as any other marriage.


----------



## Ikki (May 17, 2011)

A Gay Little Catboy said:
			
		

> Anyone be shocked on my option? Well this might shock you. I do not support the term "Gay Marriage." I support just marriage. I find no reason to label it just because it happens to be between 2 people of the same gender, I believe it should just be the same as any other marriage.


I don't see why it'd be shocking. Labels always suck.


----------



## The Catboy (May 17, 2011)

Ikki said:
			
		

> A Gay Little Catboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You know most people are shocked that me as a gay rights activist would say that, then again I am pretty sure those same people don't quite get what I am saying.
I think they think I am saying I am against Gay Marriage.


----------



## GreatCrippler (May 17, 2011)

Rogue_Syst3m said:
			
		

> i think everyone has the right to be miserable



Man, someone beat me to it. Yes, I believe gay people have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us.


----------



## KingVamp (May 17, 2011)

Densetsu9000 said:
			
		

> Rayder and Vulpes beat me to the punch.
> 
> Also, if an LGBT civil rights movement of the same magnitude as the one experienced in the US during the 60's ever occurs in our lifetime, I'd march on Washington with them.  No homo
> 
> ...


I read War post slightly different. I thought he meant they should be able to have marriage, it just man to man or woman to woman seem wrong to him. 

One day for gays and lesbians, this wouldn't be a topic or at least change to just marriage.


----------



## Panzer Tacticer (May 17, 2011)

MFDC12 said:
			
		

> cwstjdenobs said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is only directed at the portion mentioning how "quite a few denominations that are pretty accepting of homosexuality".

I consider any flavour of Bible based religion that is 'accepting' of homosexuality, to be wishy washy in their faith. The Bible is very black and white about it, and leaves NO room for discussion. Not that I care I need to comment on that eh. But, I consider it annoying how there are so many variations of Christianity out there, considering they call the Bible 'the revealed word of God' ie divinely inspired, and yet no one can read it without arguing over what it said. 

That says to me, that the whole notion of 'divinely inspired' is pathetic horseshit if it's anything. It's a dumb book, and has done nothing but divide and generate grief.

Marriage is not a 'straight' institution though, it has just been enshrined by religion for so long, that people seem to think you can't be married without a religious angle.
I told my wife, back when I told religion to piss off and get out of my life, that my marriage was, and was only, (henceforth) the document I signed in the church AFTER the damned church ceremony. I told her I still enjoy the memory of her in her wedding dress, but I'd have been just as happy if she had worn it to the town hall to sign my devotion to her in front of the proper legal authroities. My vows are still valid, but, God no longer holds any sway in the process.

This I say to anyone homosexual reading. You get nothing out of being married in a church. But if you must insist, I must insist on not supporting you if you get a lot of grief on the road to that ambition. It's not necessary, and as such, is a pointless waste of effort.

I only support legally married civil unions simply because church weddings straight included, mean nothing to me. So what you made your vows before God. I put it to you, this person (God) has never existed. You were talking to yourself.


----------



## Midna (May 17, 2011)

The Catholic church is officially accepting of gay people, but completely against gay sex and gay marrage.

The klan killed people regardless of what they did.

Bad compairison.


----------



## The Catboy (May 17, 2011)

Midna said:
			
		

> The Catholic church is officially accepting of gay people, but completely against gay sex and gay marrage.
> 
> The klan killed people regardless of what they did.
> 
> Bad compairison.


I make a comment about that, but realized that a start is a start.


----------



## machomuu (May 17, 2011)

Midna said:
			
		

> The Catholic church is officially accepting of gay people, but completely against gay sex and gay marrage.
> 
> The klan killed people regardless of what they did.
> 
> Bad compairison.


Well the topic is about gay marriage, the former two are irrelevant.


----------



## cwstjdenobs (May 17, 2011)

A Gay Little Catboy said:
			
		

> You know most people are shocked that me as a gay rights activist would say that, then again I am pretty sure those same people don't quite get what I am saying.



Some people seem to think any rights movement is about special rights, not equal rights.


----------



## ProtoKun7 (May 17, 2011)

Against it.

Yeah, I know I sound like pretty much the only one in here saying that, but I don't care.


----------



## koimayeul (May 17, 2011)

Against it 
For religious ties reason, homosexual marriage should and must be kept out of church according to the bible principles

Still i agree wholeheartedly with it being named civil union or PACS or whatever, to their right for adoption and dont care what they do in their own privacy
As for social behavior no over the top manner of display about their lifestyle is fair enough and greatly appreciated


----------



## Maz7006 (May 17, 2011)

i wont bother 

i dnt wanna get called a homophobe again thank you very much

oh shit now you know what i was gna say


----------



## smile72 (May 17, 2011)

Marriage existed before Christianity, it's a legal principle don't throw religious BS around. It really shouldn't have any significance. Those are just ignorant lies people use to justify their hatred.


----------



## iggloovortex (May 17, 2011)

Im indifferent. i have no problem with gay people and as such have no qualms about them being married.


----------



## koimayeul (May 17, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> Marriage existed before Christianity, it's a legal principle don't throw religious BS around. It really shouldn't have any significance. Those are just ignorant lies people use to justify their hatred.



no hatred or homophoby here, for myself im just shocked to see those celebrate in Church and they have no right to go on a  crusade about it

then again, homosexual ppl can always get civil marriage and DO benefit of each and every  human right equally, like any of us IMHO


----------



## smile72 (May 17, 2011)

Not all marriages are done in a church, I just want the word marriage, it'a a legal term anyway. Churches can deny whoever they want, I don't give a shit.


----------



## koimayeul (May 17, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> Not all marriages are done in a church, I just want the word marriage, it'a a legal term anyway. Churches can deny whoever they want, I don't give a shit.



fair enough civil marriage have the same rights and not hurting anyone feelings, i suppose ^^


----------



## smile72 (May 17, 2011)

You can have your religion, i just want the word and I'm glad you understand that. Most countries separate politics and religions. Well at least in name anyway,


----------



## koimayeul (May 17, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> You can have your religion, i just want the word and I'm glad you understand that. Most countries separate politics and religions. Well at least in name anyway,



i agree wholeheartedly and i believe, too, that the word marriage IS important to seal the union in one couple, be it straight or gay or lesbian
any deserve that recognition from the state that is for sure, to hell with segregation and discrimination


----------



## smile72 (May 17, 2011)

Thank you, for understanding!


----------



## Zorua (May 17, 2011)

I'm not against it, but it seems weird to me.


----------



## smile72 (May 17, 2011)

I understand that, straight marriage seems strange to me, I think why would a man want to be with a woman. But it doesn't matter,they want what they want. And whenever one of my friend s get married I'll still congratulate them.


----------



## cwstjdenobs (May 17, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> I understand that, straight marriage seems strange to me, I think why would a man want to be with a woman.



Really? In situations where you would feel uncomfortable seeing people kissing, do you feel a bit more uncomfortable around straight people kissing?


----------



## smile72 (May 17, 2011)

Yes, as I have only ever liked guys, my parents never kissed each other. In fact they hated each other. So when I see two people of the opposite gender kiss. But I feel uncomfortable when people are like making out or having sex in public in general.


----------



## Rogue_Ninja (May 17, 2011)

If 2 people want to be married I say let em. Personally I don't care it doesnt really affect me.


----------



## cwstjdenobs (May 17, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> Yes, as I have only ever liked guys, my parents never kissed each other. In fact they hated each other. So when I see two people of the opposite gender kiss. But I feel uncomfortable when people are like making out or having sex in public in general.



Not the same with the parents things but pretty much the same here. Not bothered in a nightclub, pub, general night on the town sort of thing, but when it comes down to in the street/park/supermarket car park (I kid you not)/whatever in the day I really feel uncomfortable. I always put the more uncomfortable thing down to me being straight, but did start to think maybe I was flattering myself into thinking I'm not as bigoted as I am.


----------



## Shockwind (May 17, 2011)

Rogue_Ninja said:
			
		

> If 2 people want to be married I say let em. Personally I don't care it doesnt really affect me.


This. 
I don't care about gay marriage, etc etc. But it's still pretty weird for me.


----------



## spotanjo3 (May 17, 2011)

emigre said:
			
		

> I'm Pro LGBT marriage. To me marriage is a legal service and as such should be open to all.



Actually, I am supporting GLAAD marriage but gay/lesbian marriage is okay ? Since to my understanding that God said no sex before marriage. I dont know if its true and If Gay/Lesbian fall in love and no sex before marriage then I think its ok. Anyway for BT.. well, the Bisexual and Transsexual are different from Gay and Straight. I dont know about transsexual and dont understand them and dont know why men wants to become women and women become men. Surely, I am not in their shoes to understand anything anyway. Bisexual is something I dont liked.


----------



## smile72 (May 17, 2011)

The reason why a man would want to become a woman (at least outside of Iran) is because they feel they were born the wrong gender, hate seeing their penis. It's like being in the wrong skin, and studies have been done on the brains of trans-gender found that their brains are more similar to the opposite gender than their own. Why don't you like Bisexuals? They can be monogamous too.


----------



## The Catboy (May 17, 2011)

cwstjdenobs said:
			
		

> A Gay Little Catboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't believe in earning any kind of special rights for just wanting something that shouldn't even be an issue.


----------



## BlueStar (May 17, 2011)

Panzer Tacticer said:
			
		

> The Bible is very black and white about it, and leaves NO room for discussion.
> 
> The Bible isn't black and white on anything, and there obviously is room for discussion, as well as room to decide which translation you fancy following.  Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, and the strongest mention about it is often interpreted as the personal views of Paul, not the word of God.
> 
> ...



Even churches which believe that homosexual marriage is right?  Doesn't that set a rather worrying precedent where the government can ban certain beliefs from churches if they consider them to not be the 'right' beliefs?

If marriage is recognised by the government then it must be available to all, whether there's a 'separate but equal' alternative or not.  The best solution would be that even if you're married in a church, the government doesn't acknowledge it until you also have a civil partnership.  Then anyone can get married in a religious sense by whoever is willing to marry them in a religious ceremony, and be married in the eyes of that religious denomination, and then can register their pairing with the government and be recognised in law.  How could anyone have a problem with that?


----------



## KingdomBlade (May 17, 2011)

Pro.

They should be given the option at least. They should have the same rights as everyone else has. The churches can reject whoever the hell they want, as long as the LGBT community has the right to have a legal, binding marriage.

I go to an all boys Catholic school, and TONS of people are openly gay (a lot are really flamboyant about it too). It actually adds quite a bit of flavor to the school. Seriously, we were making this like, Mother Mary shrine making contest, and BOOM, they were experts on this. I mean, the arrangements looked totally amazing, fantastic to behold. Not trying to stereotype anything, but seriously, they looked so damn good.

Just a note, in Deutronomy it says that lying in bed with another man is an offense. Then again, I don't believe in much of the Bible and I don't believe in the religion either.


----------



## Waflix (May 17, 2011)

I have nothing against it, because everyone should be free, and not denied to get married because they love someone from the same sex (like in France). I see that as discrimination, even though the law says so; an anti-discriminating law that discriminates. Kind of hypocrite.

----


			
				Goten said:
			
		

> As far as I see it, gay marriage isn't that big of a deal. Still, like previously said, it should have another name...
> 
> Since no gays try to do something with me, I'm ok with them... That's why I don't get drunk, there's more gays per group (1 in 4 people) now than there was 10 years before... I'm scared that my hole could get larger :S
> 
> ...



I think that it is more excepted these days to be a homosexual, and that that is why more people seem to be a homosexual; they are less (I don't say _not_) afraid of saying it to other people.
As for the gay marriage name, I agree. It should actually be just called 'marriage'. Because I have never heard the term "Marriage for Disabled". I don't think homosexual people are any different to heterosexual people except that they fall in love with people from the same sex, instead of most people who fall in love with people from the opposite sex.


----------



## cwstjdenobs (May 17, 2011)

A Gay Little Catboy said:
			
		

> snip...



I meant the people who didn't get your stance.


----------



## The Catboy (May 17, 2011)

cwstjdenobs said:
			
		

> A Gay Little Catboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ah, I misunderstood what you meant.


----------



## ProtoKun7 (May 17, 2011)

Waflix said:
			
		

> I don't think homosexual people are any different to heterosexual people except that they fall in love with people from the same sex, instead of most people who fall in love with people from the opposite sex.


That _is_ the difference.
That's like saying that I can't see the difference between an iPod and an iPhone except for the fact that one has a phone in it.


----------



## The Catboy (May 17, 2011)

ProtoKun7 said:
			
		

> Waflix said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


But there is still no biological difference. We are still the same as any other person.


----------



## smile72 (May 17, 2011)

ProtoKun7 why are you against gay marriage?


----------



## KingdomBlade (May 17, 2011)

ProtoKun7 said:
			
		

> Waflix said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And why should that kind of difference be a basis to decline them of the right to marry?


----------



## Magmorph (May 17, 2011)

KingdomBlade said:
			
		

> ProtoKun7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If I want to have a Christian marriage with a gay person it should be well within my rights to do so. The government shouldn't give special rights to one group of people just because of their gender.


----------



## Waflix (May 17, 2011)

Magmorph said:
			
		

> KingdomBlade said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Indeed. The law says that everyone should be treated the same in the same events. So you can in theory not be denied to marry, but the fact is another thing.


----------



## KingdomBlade (May 17, 2011)

Magmorph said:
			
		

> KingdomBlade said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When did I say that they should be declined the right? I never said that. I am on the same page with you.

Except on the Christian thing. The government doesn't decide if you are able to have a Christian wedding, the Church does, and since the Church is quite homophobic, I don't see that happening anytime soon. But I want it to happen. They should have the LEGAL rights to marry.


----------



## Magmorph (May 17, 2011)

KingdomBlade said:
			
		

> Magmorph said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The Church has no say in what your religious beliefs are. If I am a Christian and I believe gay marriage is ok no one should be able to stop me from doing it.


----------



## koimayeul (May 17, 2011)

Please dont mix government / state / society and religion 

Its not wihthin homesxual rights do have christian marriage according to the catholic church / pope position about it and bible principles, matching my personal beliefs and opinion on the matter

They have no right to go on a  crusade about it, im fully with them about civil marriage whatsoever 

Understanding go on both side, thanks to leave chrsitian religion out of that matter as Smile72 cleverly stated, civil marriage and recognition from society /state/ government is fair enough to all genders


----------



## smile72 (May 17, 2011)

The state can allow you to marry, however the Church be it Roman Catholic or whatever is a private entity the government (in theory) cannot force them to marry you. I'm fine with the equal benefits that I deserve if I choose to get married, now some churches will marry gays, and yes some are of the Christian denomination.


----------



## Waflix (May 17, 2011)

koimayeul said:
			
		

> Please dont mix government / state / society and religion
> 
> Its not wihthin homesxual rights do have christian marriage according to the catholic church / pope position about it and bible principles, matching my personal beliefs and opinion on the matter
> 
> ...



I think a religion should be able to deny people from marrying when they are homosexuals, in my opinion that's part of the freedom you have. Because in that part of freedom we have we can say that we don't agree with that, leave that religion and join another one that you like. Like my religion: reality.
A state should not be able to deny 'gay' marriage. That's just discriminating.


----------



## smile72 (May 17, 2011)

I agree with you Waflix.


----------



## koimayeul (May 17, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> I agree with you Waflix.



so do i, thanks for understanding !!


----------



## nando (May 17, 2011)

i agree that the christian/catholic church shouldn't be required to accept gay marriage as long as those entities are not TAX EXEMPT! otherwise, pay up or don't discriminate.

this goes for the evil boy scouts too.


----------



## smile72 (May 17, 2011)

Americans will never tax churches, it's in our constitutions (Religious freedom) and that would anger all the morons south of Illinois and around Illinois (hint they're the red states). On an unrelated note, YAY this is my 100th post!!! I never thought I would make this many posts.


----------



## koimayeul (May 17, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> Americans will never tax churches, it's in our constitutions and that would anger all the morons south of Illinois and around Illinois (hint they're the red states). On an unrelated note, YAY this is my 100th post!!! I never thought I would make this many posts.



congrats on ur 100thn ur a member now XD

mine was a week ago after 3 years sign up wooohoo


----------



## nando (May 17, 2011)

one more and i'll have 1000! where should i post it? better be good.


----------



## smile72 (May 17, 2011)

I never thought I would make it to a 100 posts, but that was a small step. My next goal is 1000 post, maybe I should try for 250 first though. At least you got to a hundred though koimayeul! Congrats!


----------



## koimayeul (May 17, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> I never thought I would make it to a 100 posts, but that was a small step. My next goal is 1000 post, maybe I should try for 250 first though. At least you got to a hundred though koimayeul! Congrats!



haha thx fellow temper, lets head to 1000 or 200 at least


----------



## smile72 (May 17, 2011)

I agree!!! Let's at least aim for 200!


----------



## Waflix (May 17, 2011)

nando said:
			
		

> one more and i'll have 1000! where should i post it? better be good.
> 
> Create a blog! Everyone will probably congratulate you.
> PS: Let's stay a bit more on-topic.
> ...



So you're saying that Churches should be able to discriminate homosexuals if they would pay more money?


----------



## smile72 (May 17, 2011)

They already discriminate against us, at least force them to hand out some cash to our governments.


----------



## MelissaUS (May 17, 2011)

"It doesn`t have ANY effect on your life. What do you care?! People try to talk about it like it`s social issue. Like when you see someone stand up on a talk show say "How am I supposed to explain to my child that two man are getting married?"... I dunno, it`s your shitty kid, you fu**in` tell `em. Why is that anyone else`s problem? Two guys are in LOVE but they can`t get married because YOU don`t want to talk to your child for fu**in` five minutes?"
-Louis C.K. 

Pretty much everything that I think about the gay marriage.


----------



## Magmorph (May 17, 2011)

koimayeul said:
			
		

> Please dont mix government / state / society and religion
> 
> Its not wihthin homesxual rights do have christian marriage according to the catholic church / pope position about it and bible principles, matching my personal beliefs and opinion on the matter
> 
> ...


There are several thousand denominations of the Christian religion. A church can't be forced to marry a gay couple but they can't be forced not to either. There are Christian churches that will marry gay couples and it is within a gay persons rights to get married there.


----------



## KingVamp (May 17, 2011)

MelissaUS said:
			
		

> "It doesn`t have ANY effect on your life. What do you care?! People try to talk about it like it`s social issue. Like when you see someone stand up on a talk show say "How am I supposed to explain to my child that two man are getting married?".


Just like you would with a woman and man.


----------



## Magmorph (May 17, 2011)

KingVamp said:
			
		

> MelissaUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


A child is not going to have a preconceived notion that gay marriage is wrong.


----------



## nando (May 17, 2011)

KingVamp said:
			
		

> MelissaUS said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




exactly. like when i explained straight sex to my son.

ei "see son, sometimes when a man likes a woman a lot, she'll get on all fours and the man will mount her from behind inserting his naughty part into her naughty parts. sometimes it's fun to squeeze her tities and come all over her face, if she really likes the man back she will swallow. if they are very comfortable with each other or she is trying to save her virginity, they'll do it in the butt and call each other mean things. some women like to be degraded by men just like your mommy used to. tomorrow we can talk about [censored] fantasies"


----------



## machomuu (May 17, 2011)

nando said:
			
		

> KingVamp said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


XD
Nando, that was too funny.


----------



## Ethevion (May 17, 2011)

As long as they don't bother me, then let them do what they want.


----------



## alidsl (May 17, 2011)

Tbh i don't give a flying fuck who anybody marries, i know a few gay people and they're really nice guys . I never got why the media is hatin on gays


----------



## Hop2089 (May 17, 2011)

I don't care who gets married, being gay is perfectly normal, it isn't like they are marrying a character in their DS.

Also homosexual romance can be quite cute to see, I don't really care about what folks have sex with in private either, whatever floats your boat and isn't under 18.

The hate has got to stop, can't we all just get along and homosexuality isn't bad in the bible it's anal that's bad, there's always BJs and stuff to keep it religiously sound.


----------



## nando (May 17, 2011)

machomuu said:
			
		

> Nando, that was too funny.




yay, my 1000th post didn't go to waste!

i'm surprised about the replies on here thus far. a year ago the same topic took a turn for the worse, but then again most kids in america aren't out of school yet so this could still turn bad.


----------



## koimayeul (May 17, 2011)

Magmorph said:
			
		

> koimayeul said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



yes sir as long it is not going against mainstream Chrisitanity (talking roman/catholic here) it's all fine with me as far as im concerned

sorry if i sound a bit biased, just standing my ground like you guys.. im really open minded and tolerant person, no hating or discrimination here


----------



## koimayeul (May 17, 2011)

machomuu said:
			
		

> nando said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



GREAT 1000th Nando!! LOL


----------



## machomuu (May 17, 2011)

nando said:
			
		

> machomuu said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well a year ago A Gay Little Catboy wasn't as well known and as big an influence on the community as he is now.


----------



## Sterling (May 18, 2011)

I'm against it, but only because I believe marriage to be a strictly religious rite. However, I also believe that what society has twisted it into is also very wrong. Gays have a right as American citizens to pursue happiness, but I don't think that pushing this is right. Just my two cents, but a domestic partnership should be instated that is recognized by the state over marriage.


----------



## KingVamp (May 18, 2011)

The thing is, what if the world was developed (not sure how to put that) to think straight marriage
was wrong and gay/lesbian was right? Would you think the same?

Other words if religion favored the gay/lesbian people. Would you think straights shouldn't have marriage?


----------



## smile72 (May 18, 2011)

Sterling marriage existed before our current religions, it's a legal matter not a religious one. A church can't legally marry you without the paperwork being done first. They could spiritually marry you, but that's about all they can do. I want a marriage not a domestic partnership, I want to say my husband not my domestic partner, besides you don't even get all the legal benefits of marriage with a domestic partnership.


----------



## omgpwn666 (May 19, 2011)

Yay! Controversial topic! Anyways, I believe gay people can be together, but they shouldn't be able to get married.


----------



## machomuu (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> Sterling marriage existed before our current religions, it's a legal matter not a religious one. A church can't legally marry you without the paperwork being done first. They could spiritually marry you, but that's about all they can do. I want a marriage not a domestic partnership, I want to say my husband not my domestic partner, besides you don't even get all the legal benefits of marriage with a domestic partnership.


I think he knows this, this is simply Steel Sterling's opinion, and his belief that it's a religious affair, even if it came first.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

I believe logic should dictate. This reminds me of a couple I used to live next to who believed it was only okay if two people of the same race got married, they believed interracial marriage should be illegal. So omgpwn666, I should get screwed out of all the benefits, that straights gets.


----------



## Thesolcity (May 19, 2011)

Were there same-sex marriages in openly gay societies (Rome, Greece, Sparta, etc.)? I haven't seen any evidence besides same-sex temporary relationships. Anyone is free to speak up contrary providing they have evidence to back it up. My point being, if gay marriage hasn't been legal/performed for thousands of years maybe there was a reason....?

EDIT: I also think the campaign behind it is a political Trump Card for gullible college kids. 

_(EXAMPLE): Remember Prop 8? Remember how California voted Yes to ban gay marriage? Remember how its been overturned for the trillionth time even after California clearly voted to ban it? Remember how congress bent over backwards for the minority again? Yea, clearly there *ISN'T* motivation behind defying the majority of voters of California... ">>_


----------



## omgpwn666 (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> I believe logic should dictate. This reminds me of a couple I used to live next to who believed it was only okay if two people of the same race got married, they believed interracial marriage should be illegal. So omgpwn666, I should get screwed out of all the benefits, that straights gets.



Yeah, that's my opinion. Though you shouldn't really care what I say, I don't believe any humans should be joined through holy matrimony. Humans are not meant to be bound together, that's my opinion. The only marriages that last are the ones that started years ago (maybe your grandparents?). Anyways, if anyone wants to get married, they can. I just don't think gays should be able to. And really? No one should get benefits for getting married.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

In Ancient Rome Emperor Nero reportly  married one of his male slaves and Emperor Elagabalus married a slave named Hierocles.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 but the problem is they do. And are you serious the baby boomer marriages have the highest rate of cheating and divorce, only slightly lower are the Silent Generation.


----------



## omgpwn666 (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> omgpwn666 but the problem is they do. And are you serious the baby boomer marriages have the highest rate of cheating and divorce, only slightly lower are the Silent Generation.



I'll take your word for it, I'm just judging by all the old people I know.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

All the old people I know move to Florida cheat, divorce, and find a young whore to marry them for their money. Except for my grandfather who blow his brains out when he had cancer.But he cheated too.


----------



## Magmorph (May 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Would you limit the rights of someone else to live the way they want based on that opinion?

What an appropriate use of my 666th post.


----------



## omgpwn666 (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> All the old people I know move to Florida cheat, divorce, and find a young whore to marry them for their money. Except for my grandfather who blow his brains out when he had cancer.But he cheated too.
> 
> Haha I live in Florida, so it makes it especially funny.
> 
> ...



Yes!


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 No offense but you seem no different from those nasty televangelists. But I assume you'll take offense anyway. Florida is a crappy state. I blame Republicans, they can never do anything right. Well not since the 1970s.


----------



## omgpwn666 (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> omgpwn666 No offense but you seem no different from those nasty televangelists. But I assume you'll take offense anyway. Florida is a crappy state. I blame Republicans, they can never do anything right. Well not since the 1970s.



It's fine, I did not make this state. Haha


----------



## Thesolcity (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> omgpwn666 No offense but you seem no different from those nasty televangelists.



Televangelists? You mean the "Christians" on T.V.? That's COMPLETELY different, they're using the bible and twisting it to fit their agenda/opinions, he's admitting straight out its his opinion. While maybe both their messages COULD BE the same at the root, omgpwn666 is not using anything to twist his opinion into anything more than just an opinion.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Exactly but he's not using anything to support it. He's just pretty much saying I'm not fond of gays, I see him as a Troll.


----------



## Thesolcity (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> Exactly but he's not using anything to support it. He's just pretty much saying I'm not fond of gays, I see him as a Troll.



So.....if anyone has a contradicting opinion it makes them a troll? Most of California isn't fond of gays, hence the overwhelming "Yes on 8" vote. Wanna call California a troll too? What would you even use to "support" that? Maybe its religious reasons, maybe a bad experience, maybe he's sick of the political crap surrounding it, there's a lot it could be, hence its probably too personal to post on the internet.


----------



## omgpwn666 (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> Exactly but he's not using anything to support it. He's just pretty much saying I'm not fond of gays, I see him as a Troll.



Sorry, but I really don't like to get into things that could be considered controversial or offend people. So I just state my opinion. If you're gay, than that's alright. Just don't think you should be able to get married to the same gender. Also, I still said I don't think anyone should get marriage benefits.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

That's part of the sad Obama Effect, as much as I love him, he got a lot of the African and Hispanic Americans to come out and vote. Who were morons, as they knew nothing about his politics, many thought Prop 8 would have failed. That's why it passed. No but I'll call the Church of Latter Day Saints a troll.


----------



## Thesolcity (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> That's part of the sad Obama Effect, as much as I love him, he got a lot of the African and Hispanic Americans to come out and vote. Who were morons, as they knew nothing about his politics, many thought Prop 8 would have failed. That's why it passed. No but I'll call the Church of Latter Day Saints a troll.



You're gonna call mormons a troll? What, did they magnetize the electronic voting booths?


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

No, have you seen their lying commercials.


----------



## Magmorph (May 19, 2011)

omgpwn666 said:
			
		

> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why do you need to control someone else's life based on an unfounded opinion? It wouldn't affect you at all to have gay people getting married.


----------



## Thesolcity (May 19, 2011)

Nope, but I think some comedian I was watching made fun of it for a split second. But that's all part of elections/voting. Bullshit ads. California legitimately didn't want gays. Numbers proved it, but congress shat on it.


----------



## omgpwn666 (May 19, 2011)

Magmorph said:
			
		

> omgpwn666 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have reasons, but as said, I won't get into it. Not gonna offend anyone.

Edit: Logging a bit. so won't be around until about an hour. Then I will respond to comments if there is any.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

I believe we should have voter test to get those idiots out. Who cares what the people want. Texas wanted to execute mentally retarded people, they want homosexuality to be illegal. Yeah Congress is bad, Thesolcity you're just a bigot. Do you even know how much Congress and our Supreme Court has helped the minorities of this country. We just have to fix them which will happen in 2012 thanks to Paul Ryan.


----------



## Thesolcity (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> I believe we should have voter test to get those idiots out. Who cares what the people want. Texas wanted to execute mentally retarded people, they want homosexuality to be illegal. Yeah Congress is bad, Thesolcity you're just a bigot. Do you even know how much Congress and our Supreme Court has helped the minorities of this country. We just have to fix them which will happen in 2012 thanks to Paul Ryan.
> 
> Um...what? So my conflicting view and proof California doesn't have a voice in its own state makes me a bigot? This is a government by the people, and for the people, California's residents should have control over California. They wanted gay marriages banned, they should legally be allowed to vote and have it passed into law. But no, congress flips the issue more times than necessary instead of leaving it to the residents to decide. But no, if its a minority, god forbid we don't just abandon all our hopes for the little guy, oh what a sad story they'll tell and complain how we're all the big bullies who won't let them have their way. I got a question, how much of Texas wanted to kill mentally retarded? Minority? Doubt the majority.  This is the real world, people get tired of taking it in the ass from minorities all the time, if you're the minority (not race-wise) but in an idea or movement, maybe your idea sucks. That doesn't mean call everyone a bigot and cry until you get your way. Gay marriage will *NOT* be solved soon, I can almost guarantee it. Congress will toy with the notion until they really need to play their trump cards, one-by-one: Abortion, Gay Marriage, Religious Rights, Censorship of the Internet, Copyright Reform, and most importantly, Privacy/Personal Choice Rights. Blindly believing any new candidate is a bad idea. I'm just saying campaign runners are full of shit, and will do anything for that power, and your money. With that being said,
> 
> ...



If you don't like being in a country where people are free to have what they want, and to have their own opinions, get out. Maybe a place where a dictatorship is in place or communism, you should look into moving to China.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Oh my god listen to yourself most of the South didn't want African Americans in the same room as them, wanted them to walk 10 miles in dangerous neighborhoods to school, wanted them to be 3rd rate citizen. Don't kid yourself the majority is almost never right. I suspect you to be an angry Christian white male.


----------



## Crimsonclaw111 (May 19, 2011)

My firm belief is that if heterosexual relationships are legal and recognized, then homosexual marriages should receive the same rights and recognition.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Oh god I hate stupid people, when will certain people realize that they're bigots and admit it. I wish this fight would be as easy as it could be in China.


----------



## Tanas (May 19, 2011)

There's only two types of people who are against gay marriages, these are...
1. Homophobic bigots
2. Theist bigots.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong and also feel free to add others to the list that you may know of, which I'm quite certain you wont be able to.


----------



## KingVamp (May 19, 2011)

Opinions shouldn't really step over fair humans rights tho...

Do some you see two guys get married = the end of your world? 

It not like they are dating/marrying outside their species. (let's not get into that. )


----------



## BlueStar (May 19, 2011)

Democracy doesn't mean three people can vote to eat the fourth. Is it unconstitutional to stop people from voting to ignore the constitution? If enough people voted to ban people from practising Christianity in a state, or a county, or a town, does that trump the constitutional right to freedom of religion?

But yeah, fuck minorities. A minority of people in Saudi Arabia think women should be allowed to drive, that idea must suck. A minority of people in some states not too long ago thought black and white people should be allowed to use the same water fountain. That idea must suck as well. Why did the government shit all over the constitution by insisting all men were created equal?


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

I'm tired of people saying "I'm not homophobic, I just don't believe in gay marriage." You are scared, your scared that we will ruin marriage and go after your kids to make them gay but you won't admit it. To those marriage is already ruined by divorce, and your screwing up your kids with your twisted views.


----------



## omgpwn666 (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> I'm tired of people saying "I'm not homophobic, I just don't believe in gay marriage." You are scared, your scared that we will ruin marriage and go after your kids to make them gay but you won't admit it. To those marriage is already ruined by divorce, and your screwing up your kids with your twisted views.



If I ever do have kids, they can believe what they want to believe in, just like me. You thought too deep for me, never even crossed my mind to think about kids, or being homophobic. All I can tell you is that it's not about that. I just don't believe in it, and the reasons why will remain under wraps. Not trying to piss anyone off. Just dropped by and said my opinion. Sorry if you dislike that my ideas differ from yours.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

You can believe what you want, be as ignorant as you want. But please dion't think that your "ideas" are as valid, human rights discussions really only ever have one valid point. Well unless your an asshole, and decide it's fine to think certain groups of people are below you. (Not all of this is about you omgpwn666)


----------



## omgpwn666 (May 19, 2011)

Some people believe in gay marriage, some people don't. I'm just another face in the crowd. You're not gonna change your ideas about gay marriage, and neither will I. And as said, I don't mind gays going out, just don't think they should get married. Gay people can do what ever they want, go on dates, baby sit kids, go surfing, get a tattoo. We're all humans, I just think it should be limited to marriage. I read what you said, and I took it all into mind, I'm just not a fan of it.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Oh I knew that. I've talked to people who from the 60s also, who marched against interracial marriage many of their opinions haven't changed, they say they have no problems with blacks (as they call them). They just don't believe they should be allowed to marry whites. It's a small form of discrimination, but it allows you to think your superior to certain groups of people.


----------



## omgpwn666 (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> Oh I knew that. I've talked to people who from the 60s also, who marched against interracial marriage many of their opinions haven't changed, they say they have no problems with blacks (as they call them). They just don't believe they should be allowed to marry whites. It's a small form of discrimination, but it allows you to think your superior to certain groups of people.



This is about gay marriage, nothing else. As said, I do have reasons, but I will not share them because they could be offensive to some. And people who think they're superior to others is a piece of trash. Now if that offends anyone, it was meant to. Not a fan of people who think they're dominant, even if that's how you look at me.


----------



## KingVamp (May 19, 2011)

The thing is they're humans just like us. They're not perfect, shoot even our love isn't perfect.

I always think what if I was in their shoes or straights was one in situation, I be like hey where my
human rights?

This isn't gay/lesbian rights and straights rights. This is human rights.  

If this human is in the right to marry this gender then the other human should have the same right. 

It may be wrong to you, but that shouldn't effect rights.

Even I'm not sure if it the right thing to be doing or not be doing, but I understand yes this person is human, therefor human rights.

For some people, do you think gays are not human? Then what are they?


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

KingVamp That's the problem is a lot people don't care about other people ingeneral. omgpwn666, your reasons probably won't be as offensive as they will be ignorant and stupid.


----------



## BlueStar (May 19, 2011)

If you think your religion tells you its wrong to eat pork, don't eat pork. But don't insist other people can't eat pork. If you think your religion considers gay marriage wrong, then don't marry another dude. Simples.


----------



## omgpwn666 (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> KingVamp That's the problem is a lot people don't care about other people ingeneral. omgpwn666, your reasons probably won't be as offensive as they will be ignorant and stupid.



Yup, yup. Insult me because our opinions differ. I will try to respect your thoughts though. I'm already offending you without trying. Sorry dude, really not trying to be mean. We're both just sharing opinions, I would never call you stupid because you believe in gay marriage.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Wouldn't matter I've been called worse for saying I believe in it.The huge problem is you have these "reasons" for not believing in gay marriage. Yet you do not elaborate, it's your choice whatever.
P.S. Oh YAY 150th Post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## omgpwn666 (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> Wouldn't matter I've been called worse for saying I believe in it.The huge problem is you have these "reasons" for not believing in gay marriage. Yet you do not elaborate, it's your choice whatever.
> P.S. Oh YAY 150th Post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Thanks for understanding.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			




And congratulations on your 150th post!


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Hopefully you'll change your opinion sometime in the next 5 years, and thanks I guess.


----------



## Sterling (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> Sterling marriage existed before our current religions, it's a legal matter not a religious one. A church can't legally marry you without the paperwork being done first. They could spiritually marry you, but that's about all they can do. I want a marriage not a domestic partnership, I want to say my husband not my domestic partner, besides you don't even get all the legal benefits of marriage with a domestic partnership.


Really? I know. In fact, marriage has always been cleared through religious channels, never once until today's society has Marriage been possible for gays, and other relationships that are seen as "unnatural". Which it makes sense that they are seen to be "unnatural". A man and a man and vise versa cannot procreate therefore reducing the amount of births in society. It isn't that I'm against Gays being happy or receiving the same benefits as a joined couple, but I see it as an intrusion on my religion's core values. What I don't get is why people can't respect this. My point is that a separate State recognized joining should be mandatory. One that is separated from the church. It doesn't cost anything, and you can go about calling your partner husband, wife, or whatever, but leave the holy matrimony to the people in the religious sectors. Regardless of what religion as well.

In reference to the legal matter comment, it shouldn't be. The constitution calls for Church and State to be separated. Which makes me wonder why marriage is even considered for benefits from the State.

Edit: State being the USA, and all the separate sovereign states in it's union.


----------



## BlueStar (May 19, 2011)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> A man and a man and vise versa cannot procreate therefore reducing the amount of births in society



Because if there's one thing threatening the world, it's underpopulation, isn't it?  What about infertile couples?  Should they be allowed to marry? (Also "man and a man and vise versa"? So... Uh, a man and a man or a man and a man?)

Gay unions and marriages of various types existed before Christianity, and they've been going on in the US before Christians turned up there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

If religions, or religious denominations think homosexuals should be able to marry, the government has no right to stop them.  This doesn't oppress you, or impinge on your rights to hold whatever views you want about marriage.  What if Jesus comes back and, as he did with various rules of the Old Testament, clarifies and revokes any God given orders which could be perceived as forbidding gay marriage?  I'm sure many Christians will deny him as a false prophet, but what about those who followed him?  They get barred from following the teachings of Christ, yeah?

There is no logical argument against gay marriage at all, or if there is I'm yet to hear it.


----------



## Sterling (May 19, 2011)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> QUOTE said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey man, I'm just saying it doesn't sit with me. I see marriage as a religious outlet, and the government has no right to apply legal connotations of intrinsic and economical value to society. It is not within the delegated powers of the United States government to take what is widely seen as a religious rite and ritual and apply it to benefits of society. Which is why a domestic partnership should be instated instead of marriage.

Also, who are you to say that overpopulation is a problem, when the very advancements that make longevity possible is through the efforts of people who are trying to pursue their happiness.

Everyone deserves to pursue their happiness, and having kids is one of the joys of life. However, marriage is not a way to be happy, and many see it as torment after being wed. Which is why it is a pact between you, your spouse, and your God (whoever that may be). If you wish to live together, so be it, but make it to where the benefits are state run and recognized.

Also, what does it matter to you if Jesus returns and clarifies this predicament. From what I have seen you post, you belong to no denomination and it seems that you lack any sort of belief to even remotely make such a "if statement".

If there is no logical argument against it, then you certainly won't be convincing anyone with your current statements that it's logical to allow it.

EDIT: Also, I did not say that marriage is strictly a Christian ritual, I only said that it has always traditionally gone through religious channels. That article you have linked to states that there are highly ritualized marriages between the same sex. Which suggests a religious belief.


----------



## BlueStar (May 19, 2011)

But if its allowed and recognised by the government, your religion will still only marry who it wants, be it straights only, same denomination only, non-divorcees only... So what difference does it make when in the eyes of your religion marriages you see as valid, and only those, are married in their eyes? Surely that trumps what secular government and other religions count as married anyway, so why do you care?

Why do you want government to tell churches what to do in this manner? You'd think the religious would want more freedom for churches, no?


----------



## Linkiboy (May 19, 2011)

I feel like you guys are pulling at straws. It seems the issue you two really disagree on is whether the term marriage should be used in describing a gay union.


----------



## Sterling (May 19, 2011)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> But if its allowed and recognised by the government, your religion will still only marry who it wants, be it straights only, same denomination only, non-divorcees only... So what difference does it make when in the eyes of your religion marriages you see as valid, and only those, are married in their eyes? Surely that trumps what secular government and other religions count as married anyway, so why do you care?
> 
> Why do you want government to tell churches what to do in this manner? You'd think the religious would want more freedom for churches, no?


It matters because marriage should be a religious rite only. It is a respect issue, and I do not understand the logic that marriage will make you happy. Marriage as a practice is not a right, and therefore, I would not be depriving anyone of their rights if marriage is a religious exclusive. However, because the practice is now tied to having rights, society's definition of marriage extremely outrageous. It's one of the very reasons the separation of church and state is clearly defined. Now because of the current definition, telling gays that they cannot marry is wrong because it denies certain right that everyone else has. You follow me? I'm not a gay hater, but someone who thinks government has misinterpreted such an issue from the very beginning and it needs to be rectified.

@Linkyboy: Precisely. I personally believe the title that comes from being joined in "Holy Matrimony" is one that is conveyed specifically to a religious believer of whatever denomination of any religion. Which it seems my religion doesn't take kindly to gay marriage. I'm not saying it's right, but it is my belief and all I ask is for some respect.


----------



## Inazuma Eleven (May 19, 2011)

I think that it's uncool


----------



## koimayeul (May 19, 2011)

Sterling said:
			
		

> BlueStar said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i support you totally you write what i firmly believe on the matter but im too french to handle english like you, so +1 with you sir


----------



## Inazuma Eleven (May 19, 2011)

lol koimayeul u sure are serious... TEEHEE


----------



## Sterling (May 19, 2011)

koimayeul said:
			
		

> Sterling said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


What I'm saying is that the idea and practice is not something you need to have, but society has made it into something that is needed by families regardless of age, race, or sexual orientation. I may have just misunderstood that you don't understand me though, if you do understand, thanks for the reply.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

But it's not Sterling, nobody is infringing on your religious rite here because in this case it doesn't matter. In the U.S, marriage is not handled by the Church it's handled by the state. I'm tired of people using these excuses "my church, my church". Seriously, it doesn't matter what your church says, and soon it won't matter what your state says (Thank God) because our Supreme Court will be the deciding factor. The word matters as it gives psychological benefits to gay couple, it's like when African Americans were first allowed to marry.


----------



## Sterling (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> But it's not Sterling, nobody is infringing on your religious rite here because in this case it doesn't matter. In the U.S, marriage is not handled by the Church it's handled by the state. I'm tired of people using these excuses "my church, my church". Seriously, it doesn't matter what your church says, and soon it won't matter what your state says (Thank God) because our Supreme Court will be the deciding factor.


Oh, but it's not just my church. I'm speaking for any religious institution. You see, at it's core, marriage is still a fundamental title that tells everyone you're together. However, I believe that marriage is a pact that the government has no right to include with benefits to society. You see, I'm on your side. I just think that the title is not one that should be recognized by society. You see, when you get married, the whole thing costs a lot of money. For setup and execution. I am merely suggesting, that the entire partnership legal title be handled by the State, and the marriage title be one that you can get separately by choice.

Seriously, I am not suggesting you or your partner be denied a fundamental right. I am just telling you what I believe in, and that the current definition should be changed. Do you hold this against me? Do you hold it against me because I believe that because you are gay, and do not believe in Christ you will go to Hell because of what my Bible says? I'm not saying what I believe in is right. I'm not saying that is what will come to pass. I am only demanding respect for my beliefs.


----------



## koimayeul (May 19, 2011)

Inazuma Eleven said:
			
		

> lol koimayeul u sure are serious... TEEHEE



standing my safe ground, here religion being mixed up with government laws..  it is tiring indeed ^^

Just.. not try to make it a christian marriage.. its clearly stated in the holy bible and by the pope, gays/lesbians dont get god's blessing for their choice

THOUGH they do get mine as far as im concerned and as long their union it being named domestic partnership or civil marriage, homosexual couples deserve the same right to benefit from the social protection and recognition from the society at any rate


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Oh that's cute, how do you know I don't believe in Christ. Never once did I say don't believe in Christ. You have respect for your beliefs in your church. Here though, I don't want to civil union someone, nor do I want a Domestic Partnership. I want to get married. And as slow as it will take even Texas will be forced to marry same sex couples may not be now, may not be in 5 years, but I believe with in 10-15 years Texas will be marrying gay couples, so I would probably. And I kinda love how you ask for your beliefs to be respected, when you're saying I'm going to be eternally damned. Ha Ha, are you joking?


----------



## koimayeul (May 19, 2011)

War said:
			
		

> Hey guys, just wanted to know what you all thought about this. we were talking about it in class today and I was just shocked/disgusted by some people's opinions on it. please post and let us all knw what you think!



BTW what the OP opinion about it? or was it for the hell of a controversial topic and laugh ur ass off wordly battles here


----------



## BlueStar (May 19, 2011)

Sterling said:
			
		

> It matters because marriage should be a religious rite only.
> 
> Wait, so if I get married to my girlfriend in secular ceremony in a registry office rather than a church, am I not allowed to call myself married?
> 
> ...



So do you concede that as long as marriage is recognised by the state, homosexuals MUST have the same right to marry, even as you push for the State to refuse to acknowledge the religious side of the union?


----------



## koimayeul (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> Oh that's cute, how do you know I don't believe in Christ. Never once did I say don't believe in Christ. You have respect for your beliefs in your church. Here though, I don't want to civil union someone, nor do I want a Domestic Partnership. I want to get married. And as slow as it will take even Texas will be forced to marry same sex couples may not be now, may not be in 5 years, but I believe with in 10-15 years Texas will be marrying gay couples, so I would probably. And I kinda love how you ask for your beliefs to be respected, when you're saying I'm going to be eternally damned. Ha Ha, are you joking?


chill and smile hehe you misread him he exactly said that he dont blame you for ur choices.. no one does!! its personnal and ur own decision, cant touch this


----------



## Veho (May 19, 2011)

Sterling said:
			
		

> It matters because marriage should be a religious rite only.


Why? The institution of marriage predates all existing religions, and is primarily a social arrangement, not a religious ritual. And while individual religions and churches have the right to define the religious rites _related_ to marriage, they can't _impose_ their definitions to the rest of society. Because according to that definition, atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry either.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

koimayeul, I know what he said. I just had a minor bit of anger trapped.  On an unrelated note I have surpassed you in post!!!!!


----------



## BlueStar (May 19, 2011)

Wait, hang on, one more thought - if the government stops giving benefits for 'marriage' and instead opts for a recognised civil partnership approach, seperate from the religious/whatever-type-of-ceremony-you-want bit, how can you even legislate what is called marriage, when it's basically being taken out of the state system and legislature anyway? 

What do you do when a gay couple get their civil partnership confirmed, go to a hotel, a liberal christian church, the church of elvis or wherever, do a ceremony and say they're married?  Ban them from using that word?  Have your church start a lawsuit saying they own the copyright of the word marriage and to cease and disist using that word when referring to their partnership?

Again, some denominations don't think you can remarry after divorce - who decides which definition of marriage is right between those two views?


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Or even better when Utah's FLDS starts allowing 14 year old girls to be legally married, as the state will no longer have control over marriage, men can have as many wives as they want, regardless of age.


----------



## Sterling (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> Oh that's cute, how do you know I don't believe in Christ. Never once did I say don't believe in Christ. You have respect for your beliefs in your church. Here though, I don't want to civil union someone, nor do I want a Domestic Partnership. I want to get married. And as slow as it will take even Texas will be forced to marry same sex couples may not be now, may not be in 5 years, but I believe with in 10-15 years Texas will be marrying gay couples, so I would probably. And I kinda love how you ask for your beliefs to be respected, when you're saying I'm going to be eternally damned. Ha Ha, are you joking?
> I'm saying that it is my belief you will be, if indeed you have not accepted Christ as you lord and savior. I'm also not saying what I believe in is socially, or morally acceptable by todays standards. I'm asking for respect in that marriage be considered second to what is accepted by the state. Making a Christan union a choice, not a right.
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, but the document you have that states which union you have will be more specific. 

You misunderstand me. I do not suggest I have anything against these sorts of unions. I am unhappy with the title that is currently sought after. Society as a whole cannot differentiate different meanings because traditionally marriage is a religious custom. Society doesn't understand that there can be something else.

I do concede if the documentation and general attitude of society changes.

Religion is one of the very reasons Humanity has been around for so long. Religion is the core of Humanity. Regardless of present "revelations", logic and precise meaning has only take root in the last 10 centuries. Even Neanderthals had a ritualistic tendency, which suggested a religious belief.

@Above: State run Marriage will be fully enforced no different than it already is. If you are married after you apply for domestic partnership under any means, the paperwork and documentation will be updated to reflect such changes. Also, such things as divorce restrictions should not be held up by law in the courts. The church has no business in the courts.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Eventually most of the world will be irreligious. Religious belief is falling in many countries such as Japan, the People's Republic of China, numerous European countries.


----------



## koimayeul (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> koimayeul, I know what he said. I just had a minor bit of anger trapped.  On an unrelated note I have surpassed you in post!!!!!



its normal because its touching to your core beliefs, just like me getting angry to see the old argument church=homophobic with no further thinking and understanding

to me the roman/catholic church rite of marriage is the seal of an union between a man and a woman, along with god's blessing
homosexuals and ppl not from that confession are denied that because of bible principles and the pope position, that just how it is!! 

if anyone thinks its wrong they are free to chose another religion or church denomination to marry them, no question asked 
i see no problem really.. and you can perfectly be christian and homosexual just dont get pissed over the priest and pope not interceding for god's blessing, i guess!!


edit : oh and nice count of posts dude keep it up


----------



## koimayeul (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> Or even better when Utah's FLDS starts allowing 14 year old girls to be legally married, as the state will no longer have control over marriage, men can have as many wives as they want, regardless of age.


thats sick!!


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Oh I don't care about the religious part of it, I'm going to have to say this as more places allow gay marriage, the Roman Catholic will be scrutinized even more. Eventually even they will have to validate gay wedding. It will happen no matter what. Just like how LDS, had to admit black people were not cursed by god.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

koimayeul That's why I don't want churches having control of marriage without government watching over them.


----------



## BlueStar (May 19, 2011)

Sterling said:
			
		

> @Above: State run Marriage will be fully enforced no different than it already is. If you are married after you apply for domestic partnership under any means, the paperwork and documentation will be updated to reflect such changes. Also, such things as divorce restrictions should not be held up by law in the courts. The church has no business in the courts.



But again, if a church, or any other organisation, calls their joining ceremonies marriage, how would you stop them and why would you want to?  If you think you're 'married' because you've taken part in a ceremony in front of the Biblical God, and I think you're not because it doesn't have the blessing of Zeus, but I'm married because mine did, the government only considers that we're both officially partnered, then firstly what can we do about it and secondly why should either of us care?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 19, 2011)

Everything depends on what you mean by "marriage" IMO.

If you mean a legal union between two people based on partnership for inherritence and tax purposes, go on ahead and marry in whatever combinations you want.

If you mean a union with a religious background, then it depends on your religion. If you happen to be a Catholic, don't demand marriage - Catholicism doesn't allow homosexual marriage and that's *it*. You're free to change your religion if you really want to.

If you wanted to start off a *real* discussion, then let's talk about "adoption by homosexual couples", that's a way "fresher" subject. Gay marriage is sooo 20th century.


----------



## BlueStar (May 19, 2011)

Ok, I'm completely in favour of homosexual couples being given the same adoption rigths as heterosexual couples.  The child should go to the best home, the race, religion and sexuality of the parents should be irrelevant.


----------



## koimayeul (May 19, 2011)

Foxi4 said:
			
		

> Everything depends on what you mean by "marriage" IMO.
> 
> If you mean a legal union between two people based on partnership for inherritence and tax purposes, go on ahead and marry in whatever combinations you want.
> 
> ...



thx for understanding the dilemma sir and pointing that out clearly


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Why would we need to discuss adoption? That has no religious pretense, children are in no danger of being hurt by most gay and lesbian couples. You're just a bigot if you don't support that.


----------



## koimayeul (May 19, 2011)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> Ok, I'm completely in favour of homosexual couples being given the same adoption rigths as heterosexual couples.  The child should go to the best home, the race, religion and sexuality of the parents should be irrelevant.


of course


----------



## Foxi4 (May 19, 2011)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> Ok, I'm completely in favour of homosexual couples being given the same adoption rigths as heterosexual couples.  The child should go to the best home, the race, religion and sexuality of the parents should be irrelevant.
> 
> And I'm againts. Let me be clear hear - I'm not a homophobe in any way. I just believe that children in general tend to mimic their parents behaviour to a certain extent. Until they reach a certain level of maturity, they will clone behavioral patterns and some of them are hard-coded into the mind. A homosexual couple is *not* a family unit. A man and a woman is a family unit. It's just simple like that for me.
> 
> QUOTEWhy would we need to discuss adoption? That has no religious pretense, children are in no danger of being hurt by most gay and lesbian couples. You're just a bigot if you don't support that.



No biggotry involved. Just years and years of discoveries in behavioral patterns done by hundreds of psychologists.


----------



## BlueStar (May 19, 2011)

So what if they mimic their parents?  And every homosexual was born out of a heterosexual relationship, that doesn't seem to ahev made them straight.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

That makes you a homophobe pretty much, because you don't believe scientific studies which show children won't want to be gay if they're not. Simple enough for one so ignorant as  you. Als o9 because you don't feel that gays are as good of parents as straights.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> That makes you a homophobe pretty much, because you don't believe scientific studies which show children won't want to be gay if they're not. Simple enough for one so ignorant as  you



I never said that children brought up by homosexuals will become homosexuals, I didn't even bring it up. I said that children like this are brought up in "family units" that are sub-standard, thus their behavioral patterns differ from normal children.

If you'll ask me "would it be better if they were brought up by a couple of agressive drunkards?" I'll say hell no - better give the rights to the gays and lesbians, but that's not the point here.

The point being that a family unit, at least for me, needs to reach certain standards. Drunkards and aggro-peeps don't deserve children either.

I'm not even being ignorant here - if I were ignorant, I wouldn't care for scientific studies at all, whereas I do. I just lean towards a different "school of psychology" than you do.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

So, that's good it means that they're different and think different, just like (oh god) any normal human. The school you lean toward has no degree and lies all the time, keep it up, it just keeps sounding worse for you.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> So, that's good it means that they're different and think different, just like (oh god) any normal human. The school you lean toward has no degree and lies all the time, keep it up, it just keeps sounding worse for you.



You know where we differ? You believe that having children is a *right* for every couple. I believe it is a *privilege* for couples which meet certain standards the society they live in imposes on them.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

I agree, couples should meet standards. But what you're spewing out is garbage that is not endorsed by anyone with a degree in psychology or even a school that teaches psychology. Just like those lying Mormons commercials during prop 8.


----------



## Sterling (May 19, 2011)

Foxi4 said:
			
		

> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Here's where I agree with you for once.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Are you agreeing with me or Foxi4?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 19, 2011)

It's not a lie, it's an opinion. There are several studies done in the field, some say that it is not harmful in any extent, some say that children brought up in same-sex couples suffer from lower self-esteem and frequent confusion.

You can google up either, really. You don't have to prepare the torches just because I don't agree with you - I have a right not to agree.

It's definatelly something worth studying and I'm PRO extensive studies on the subject. When a given side will gather sufficient factual evidence for either thesis, I'm willing to change my mind. For now, I'm againts, and I know I have ground to stand on.


----------



## Sterling (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> Are you agreeing with me or Foxi4?


Foxi4. He has the same sort of outlook I have on psychology.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Of course wrong psychology not surprised, numerous studies have been done have found that children raised in same sex couples are the same as opposite sex couples.I tend to believe the American Psychiatric Association


----------



## BlueStar (May 19, 2011)

So we want the government to officially mandate that a homosexual couple is a "sub-standard" family?

What are these studies which show it's harmful?  Both the American Psychological Association and the American Medical Association support same-sex adoption and say there is no evidence to suggest any harm to the child - other than the fact lack of legal recognition can cause problems with things like accessing healthcare.


----------



## koimayeul (May 19, 2011)

Given the fact a homosexual couple can not procreate by definition, why deny them the joy of taking care and raising a child together ? sound so cruel

Sexuality of the parents not matter one bit in such a case, only child well being and well growth and the god forsaken right  to be a member in a caring family should be taken in account

The child become adult and think later on about his/her own self just like normal.. why his/her childhood would have been wasted not having a mother and a father but two daddy or two mommy? it would have been different that is all there is to say, nothing to complain or be shocked about IMO


----------



## Foxi4 (May 19, 2011)

For example, spanish scientists disagree and they've posted a long report about their studies, forgive the crude Google Translation.

America is not the navel of the universe.



			
				QUOTE said:
			
		

> Given the fact a homosexual couple can not procreate by definition, why deny them the joy of taking care and raising a child together ? sound so cruel


Neither can a woman and a dolphin, but that doesn't automatically mean that they will be great parents, does it?

As I said - it's a matter of society standards.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

No, we're just the most trustworthy when it comes to anything psychological. I don't trust this study. Is it founded by a family group?


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

I love that a woman and a dolphin, how foolish are you, you've come to the point where you realize, I'm a human, I have feeling, and I can raise children just as good if not better than you. And it makes you angry doesn't it?
P.S. Awesome 175 posts!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So close to 200!


----------



## BlueStar (May 19, 2011)

An infertile couple can't procreate.  Neither can a goose and a bag of rocks.  Therefore, the fact we wouldn't let a goose and a bag of rocks be parents means we shouldn't let infertile couples adopt either.

You're being deliberately disingenous with your dolphin analogy.  There is a difference between a human adult and a water dwelling mammal that is not there between one couple and another just based on what genders they are.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 19, 2011)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> An infertile couple can't procreate.  Neither can a goose and a bag of rocks.  Therefore, the fact we wouldn't let a goose and a bag of rocks be parents means we shouldn't let infertile couples adopt either.
> 
> You're being deliberately disingenous with your dolphin analogy.  There is a difference between a human adult and a water dwelling mammal that is not there between one couple and another just based on what genders they are.



Why'd you bring infertility to the subject? Being fertile or infertile is a breeding factor, not a child-raising factor. Your argument fits like a fist againts the nose.

I'll elaborate on my stance.

Contemporary children psychology states that during development, children need a masculinity blueprint, represented by the male parent and a femininity blueprint represented by the female parent. During their early days, children mimic the behaviour of both parents until they become aware of their gender. That way, they learn the basics. Once this awareness is in-place, they start to learn according to the correct gender blueprint they have in their disposal. It's called the motherly figure and the fatherly figure.

In homosexual marriages, one of the blueprints is missing, hence the process is disrupted.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Nope I just think your just ignorant. And don't realize how ignorant your "research" is and how stupid some of your comments sound to normal people.


----------



## koimayeul (May 19, 2011)

this would deserve its own topic seeing you guys deliberating haha

edit : though may be not, arguments fall short.. dolphin and woman XD


----------



## Ritsuki (May 19, 2011)

I'm against gay marriage. Marriage is a sacred pact between a man and a women. We could invent something that gives the same advantages than marriage, but I really think that the ceremony should stay as it's intended to be.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> Nope I just think your just ignorant. And don't realize how ignorant your "research" is and how stupid some of your comments sound to normal people.



I assume you're calling Sterling "stupid" aswell? He seems to agree.

The difference between you and me is that I'm trying to have a discussion and you are calling me stupid.

"No ya wrawng" is a behaviour I'm absolutely allergic to. If you don't have anything to add to the discussion or any study report to post againts mine, you're just like a re-winding tape. I already heard your stance, now try to build up some foundations for it, smile.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Still need the title or it's not really equal is it, plus there is a thing called legal marriage. Where you have a ceremony in a court. Or are you as ignorant as some of the people in this topic and don't realize that there is a separation of church and state in almost every country.


----------



## koimayeul (May 19, 2011)

Ritsuki said:
			
		

> I'm against gay marriage. Marriage is a sacred pact between a man and a women. We could invent something that gives the same advantages than marriage, but I really think that the ceremony should stay as it's intended to be.



yes sir agree with you

and its already done with domestic partnership / pacs

every single one happy now


----------



## Foxi4 (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> Still need the title or it's not really equal is it, plus there is a thing called legal marriage. Where you have a ceremony in a court. Or are you as ignorant as some of the people in this topic and don't realize that there is a separation of church and state in almost every country.
> 
> QUOTE(Foxi4 @ May 19 2011, 12:07 PM) Everything depends on what you mean by "marriage" IMO.
> 
> ...



Seeing that you don't read what I'm writing and just carry on yelling out your stance, I've decided to ignore you throughout the rest of the thread. Thank you for allowing me to pick up your ignorance, I needed a direct hint.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Of course, no your trying to add fake evidence to a discussion about human rights, stupid people never learn.The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America, the North American Council on Adoptable Children,and the Canadian Psychological Association all support same sex parenting.


----------



## Raika (May 19, 2011)

I don't think anything about it. As long as two people are in love I don't think anyone can tell them what they can or cannot do. Conservative idiots just need to be more accepting and the world would be a much friendlier place.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Foxi4 that was directed toward Ritsuki, though you are ignorant don't kid yourself, you choose to ignore the truth for your "beliefs". Which are considered wrong and bigoted by the majority.


----------



## koimayeul (May 19, 2011)

Foxi4 said:
			
		

> Everything depends on what you mean by "marriage" IMO.
> 
> If you mean a legal union between two people based on partnership for inherritence and tax purposes, go on ahead and marry in whatever combinations you want.
> 
> ...



on topic, quote you again because i cant say it in better words

im offline g2g here, peace out ppl


----------



## Ritsuki (May 19, 2011)

Man, you really need to calm down. First of all, I'm not american. I'm not aware about your laws. And if you read my post, you'll notice that I used the words 'pact', 'sacred' and 'ceremony' which belongs to the lexical field of religion. I was talking about the religion part. When I say marriage, I'm not talking about the official thing with the mayor, etc... It's just a legal procedure. I'm not against the title, it's just that I think that the religeous ceremony should stay as it is. I hope that clarifies my words


----------



## BlueStar (May 19, 2011)

I bring up infertile couples because when gay marriage and adoption is brought up, some people act like marriage is soley for the purpose of popping out as many little humans as possible, when this is clearly not the case.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Okay, but you realize some churches do perform same sex marriages right.


----------



## Pong20302000 (May 19, 2011)

if people are happy together and its what they want (not shotgunned into it)
i say go for it

there's nothing wrong with it

its being sacred and stuff is all bull
go to Vegas and marry someone in like 3 mins by Elvis

all it is, is a piece of paper


----------



## Foxi4 (May 19, 2011)

Just to make my point clear one more time, since I guess I strayed off-topic a bit.

I'm all okay for same-sex marriages, in the sense of a union between two people for the sake of taxes and other legal issues. I'm againts adoption though, since I believe in the school of Behaviorism.



			
				QUOTE said:
			
		

> I bring up infertile couples because when gay marriage and adoption is brought up, some people act like marriage is soley for the purpose of popping out as many little humans as possible, when this is clearly not the case.



Oh, but it is. The point of marriage is creating a family unit formalized by legal obligations, on the basis of legal, social, libido, emotional, economical, and in case of religious marriage,  religious and spiritual reasons, for the purpose of raising children. You're describing a partnership-based relationship.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Not even wasting my time, I've already shown the evidence.


----------



## Pong20302000 (May 19, 2011)

Foxi4 said:
			
		

> Just to make my point clear one more time, since I guess I strayed off-topic a bit.
> 
> I'm all okay for same-sex marriages, in the sense of a union between two people for the sake of taxes and other legal issues. I'm againts adoption though, since I believe in the school of Behaviorism.



but then what happens if they adopt but there kids go to a private boarding school?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 19, 2011)

Pong20302000 said:
			
		

> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And by that you mean you've shown no evidence at all.


----------



## BlueStar (May 19, 2011)

People get married without any intention of having children.  People unable to have children still get married.  People have children without getting married.  There is clearly much more to marriage than procreation.  That's just something pushed by organised religions who want as many little catholics/muslims/whatever popping out to bolster their numbers.

@above - What do you do on both mothers day and fathers day when you're in an orphanage because people are commited to forbidding you from being taken in to a loving home by a section of the community?  What about if the kids grow up gay, are forbidden from adopting, then what do they do on school sports day, or halloween, or any other event you take part in with your kids?


----------



## ShinyJellicent12 (May 19, 2011)

IDK AND IDC


----------



## Ritsuki (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> Okay, but you realize some churches do perform same sex marriages right.



Yeah, I know, good for them. But tell me if I'm wrong, they're not permitted by the christian religion. Anyway, I'm against it because of religion. I tend to think that some aspects of religion should not be changed. Like foxi said, legal marriage and religeous marriage is clearly not the same for me. Again, I'm not talking about the legal title or even having children. Just about the religeous part.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Yes they are, they have a right to believe whatever parts of the bible they want.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 19, 2011)

BlueStar said:
			
		

> People get married without any intention of having children.  People unable to have children still get married.  People have children without getting married.  There is clearly much more to marriage than procreation.  That's just something pushed by organised religions who want as many little catholics/muslims/whatever popping out to bolster their numbers.
> 
> This is why I draw the division. I believe that marriage is too complicated and formalized as an institution nowadays.
> 
> ...



That's called "don't give a shitism". Either you believe the whole thing or you don't. Obviously the Bible is just a moral framework, not a set of factual stories written in stone. Never the less, you can't pick and choose.

Imagine if judges judged people based on excerpts. "Oh, this part of the Law sounds okay. Oh, wait. This one doesn't. Meh, I'll go with part 1 and forget about part 2". That's not how it works. If you call yourself a good Christian, you follow the bible in its whole, not excerpts.

That makes me a bad Christian, and I realize that, but at least I *acknowlage* it instead of painting myself with brighter colours than I really am.


----------



## Pong20302000 (May 19, 2011)

Foxi4 said:
			
		

> Pong20302000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lol if you got no mom you do nothing lol
and if you adopted you still have a mum

boarding school in the UK start at 2 years old


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Foxi4 I've shown who supports same sex parenting apparently you need to read what I write closer. So what do you do if your raised by a single parent, same thing nothing, are you seriously asking something this stupid?


----------



## Pong20302000 (May 19, 2011)

Ritsuki said:
			
		

> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



All the Church's where i live in the UK, even the Full blown Christian ones support all types of marriages.
guess the people near me focus on peoples happiness rather than pushing a 2000 year old story book on people


----------



## Foxi4 (May 19, 2011)

Pong20302000 said:
			
		

> Ritsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You're full of it John, I've been to the UK several times and a zillion of peeps tried to "save" me and my girlfriend. Preachings in the UK vary, most Baptist churches for example state that animals do not posses the Immortal Soul, even though the Bible says clearly otherwise on numerous instances.

So no, they're not as unified as you may think. Their prechings vary A WHOLE LOT.


----------



## Ritsuki (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> Yes they are, they have a right to believe whatever parts of the bible they want.



Yeah, I know, that's what I do (btw, I'm not christian), but we can't just say 'I do not belive in that rule, so I'm not going to follow it'. It's a bit to easy. Religion is something that doesn't change a lot. So instead of changing it, why don't we change our system ? I don't care about same sex person who wants to marry. The most important thing is to be happy (even if I think that marriage is not the best way to be happy, but that's off topic and only my opinion 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





). Even if a guy wants to marry a dog, fine ! But not in a religeous way, because it would be againt the religion.


----------



## Pong20302000 (May 19, 2011)

Foxi4 said:
			
		

> Pong20302000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



John?
LOL!
even GayLittleCatBoy knows my real name and it aint John
you must of gone to the wrong part of the UK


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Ritsuki Do you remember the example I gave where LDS changed to allow black people to join, they believed they were black because they were cursed by God, they now omit that from The Book of Mormon.


----------



## Ritsuki (May 19, 2011)

Off Topic : I think he said John like in 'John Doe', the common name for unknown people


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

It's okay pong20302000, he just can't keep his lies together anymore. Wouldn't be smarter to just call you by your username?


----------



## Foxi4 (May 19, 2011)

Pong20302000 said:
			
		

> John?
> LOL!
> even GayLittleCatBoy knows my real name and it aint John
> you must of gone to the wrong part of the UK
> ...



Pong used my fake name in a different argument, so I thought I'll just carry on with the funny game a little longer.


----------



## Pong20302000 (May 19, 2011)

Lol i know where he got John from tho
its from my fake name on youtube

its the internet
on site like this you gotta have a fake ID

id post you IP and location and stuff puts thats too personal


----------



## The Catboy (May 19, 2011)

Ritsuki said:
			
		

> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually no, it is not. There is nothing in the New Testament against homosexuality (there is something about Bestiality though) In fact Jesus was not against homosexuals. There was something in the Old Testament, but most Christan based religions don't follow the Old Testaments, because Jesus said that is no longer needed.
There where the problem is because that's where it creates the contradictions.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Yes, the Old Testament really only mentions where it's bad to have sex with men, only applies if you're Jewish, because Christians almost never obey the Old Testament. And it doesn't matter to the Jews as they're all going to Heaven anyway (if they're right).


----------



## Foxi4 (May 19, 2011)

Pong20302000 said:
			
		

> id post you IP and location and stuff puts thats too personal



I have no problem with that, mine's 127.0.0.1


----------



## Pong20302000 (May 19, 2011)

Foxi4 said:
			
		

> Pong20302000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



ok long as you fine with that


----------



## Foxi4 (May 19, 2011)

Pong20302000 said:
			
		

> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*beep* Wrong 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Try again, wrong node. Close though, I believe that's my ISP's HQ.


----------



## BlueStar (May 19, 2011)

I can't say I know many Christians over here, but the handful I do all support gay marriage.  In fact they're some of the most liberal people in my circle of friends.


----------



## Pong20302000 (May 19, 2011)

Foxi4 said:
			
		

> Pong20302000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



im not even trying
clearly the quick responses say something about you tho?

Topic:

YAY to Gays

death to Nays


----------



## BlueStar (May 19, 2011)

Foxi4 said:
			
		

> That's called "don't give a shitism". Either you believe the whole thing or you don't. Obviously the Bible is just a moral framework, not a set of factual stories written in stone. Never the less, you can't pick and choose.



Everyone picks and chooses.  From which translation you decide to read, to how much of the Old Testament you think is superceeded by the new stuff.  There are thousands of different denominations and interpretations of the bible, most of which think they aren't cherry picking, and yet all of which have different views on what the bible says, to varying degrees.


----------



## Ritsuki (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> Ritsuki Do you remember the example I gave where LDS changed to allow black people to join, they believed they were black because they were cursed by God, they now omit that from The Book of Mormon.



That's why I said that only some things should not be changed in religion. You know, I'm not really fond of religion (just look at the Pope who said that using condoms gives HIV in Africa... srsly.) but I really think that traditions and ceremony should be respected. Not because of God or whatever, but just by respect for our ancestors. Even if they did bad things, I think we should respect them a little bit, because finally, religion, even if we're atheists, is a part of our culture.


----------



## Foxi4 (May 19, 2011)

Pong20302000 said:
			
		

> Foxi4 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I just did my share of tracking back when I was younger. In the age of DHCP connection it started being obselete, you usually end up with the ISP home adress.


----------



## The Catboy (May 19, 2011)

Ritsuki said:
			
		

> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Marriage is a hell of a lot older than any religion to date and records of gay marriage exist long before Christianity. Which means Christianity is one disrespecting traditions and ceremony of marriage.


----------



## Ritsuki (May 19, 2011)

A Gay Little Catboy said:
			
		

> Ritsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interesting. I learned something today 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 But still, I think it would be way easier to change our actual laws than trying to change religion. Those guys are really stubborn...


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Why should we respect our ancestors when they were assholes. Do you respect Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, or Mussolini? Or even better Andrew Jackson.


----------



## Raika (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> Why should we respect ancestors when they were assholes. Do you respect Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, or Mussolini?


Poor examples. Not all ancestors are assholes.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

A lot of people are stubborn eventually Christianity will have to include gays, otherwise members will start to leave,it may take decades but it will happen.


----------



## Pong20302000 (May 19, 2011)

A Gay Little Catboy said:
			
		

> Ritsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



religion is also just a way for people to make money

post a picture of GLCT and his partner kissing and we will see how bad this chat get

i feel so alive
i love GBAtemp when a good ol fights going down


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Raika you misunderstood me, Ritsuki said we should respect our ancestors even if they did bad things.

pong I've mostly been fighting with a lot of knuckleheads on this topic alone. It may seem fun and it is at first and then it becomes taxing.


----------



## Pong20302000 (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> Raika you misunderstood me, Ritsuki said we should respect our ancestors even if they did bad things.
> 
> *Posts merged*
> 
> pong I've mostly been fighting with a lot of knuckleheads on this topic alone. It may seem fun and it is at first and then it becomes taxing.



yeah but its great when its out of control
the DSTT pokemon fight of 2010
that was EPIC!!

i know what you mean tho
you just have to smile at the fact you know somewhere something is stressing there head off screaming while your there laughing


----------



## Ritsuki (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> Why should we respect ancestors when they were assholes. Do you respect Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, or Mussolini?



To tell you the truth, yes. They have changed the world in a dramatic way. I'm not judging them (their action were clearly bad). But they changed the world. A lot of medical discoveries were done during the WWII, because the Nazi had no morality and performed experiences on the human body. Yes, it's cruel, but without that our medical sciences wouldn't be as efficient. If I could, I'd go back in time and kill them, but I'm pretty sure that it would be a bad idea.

It looks like I'm against gay marriage just because I'm stubborn and narrow minded (and maybe because I belive in God). Just want to say I'm against it because I find more personal arguments against gay marriage, than for gay marriage. My impression on the subject is changing the more I debate with you, I learned a lot of things today, so thank you !


----------



## Panzer Tacticer (May 19, 2011)

Another thread focused on a religious matter and several pages from the other day later and no real need to read them, we have all read it all before (which is why so many threads just get nasty eventually).

But I need to at least mention, before I bid farewell to the thread, that I was born Anglican Christian, and di the whole alter boy thing in my teens.

I KNOW what's written in the Bible.

I KNOW it's black and white, and sorry, but the Bible has NO room for homosexuals.

But, the reason we have so many flavours of Christianity, is simply because even Christians won't read their Bible and accept it fully.

So telling me this church or that church is 'currently ok with homosexuals' is missing a very important point. They are simply ignoring portions of the Bible that they wish to ignore. The portions though, they have not gone anywhere.

Then again, we have people that love Jesus big time, yet they preach Jesus came to save us, and the Old Testament has been invalidated, and yet those same people eagerly wait the Rapture, which is old testament.

If the Bible was a computer program, it wouldn't install without making you freak out first, and it likely would be massively buggy with a lot of bloat that was no longer needed and it would crash on you regularly. Not to mention it would be marketed in 100 versions, all claiming to be compatible, and yet not.

I've been Anglican, I have been Mormon (that was the last straw though before I gave up), and as a result, I am technically a genuine Aaronic Priest.
My brother is married into a Catholic Church and I have made special items for nephews to celebrate key moments in the catholic faith. I grew up with Catholics, and Jews and Wiccans, and Lutherans and Hindus and I was married in a Pentecostal church. I don't mind Mormon missionaries dropping by and will usually offer them a cold glass of water on a hot day. They're usually very polite lads. I am more than happy to open the door naked to a Jehovah's Witness, as those people and me are not friends.

You don't need to agree with the above, but, you might as well give up trying to establish how the Bible does NOT want homosexuals eliminated.
Any church accepting them, is really just breaking their own rules. I've seen how Liviticus discusses them. It's not pretty. Then again, Liviticus is a particularly nasty hateful person too.

But I am 100% ok with homosexuals myself. Comes from being 100% free of religious dogma.
And if you think religion has no impact on how your laws are written, I refer you to the Scopes Monkey Trial.
In the US south, they have used the law to make it ok to teach Creationism in school.
The law is the reason for a lot of Sunday based work limitations.
You can't screw your mate in full view in the park because of laws written by people with religious convictions.

There's a LOT of laws with religous origins.
The US declaration of indepence is fairly dripping in religious context.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

I agree with you pong, clearly Ritsuki didn't learn much. And I hope Ritsuki realizes that eventually Switzerland will bump civil unions up to full marriage.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Um I don't know what your on Panzer Tactier but Jesus didn't want to eliminate anybody. I'm thinking your just stupid and misread it, but I know better. The U.S. still separates church and state. In fact the New Testament completely overwrote the Old Testament unless you want to follow that. Hope you enjoy a nice time in jail should you choose to completely follow the bible.


----------



## koimayeul (May 19, 2011)

im back!! lets fight lol

if you dont know me in this thread already you can do WHATEVER U LIKE just dont ask for gay marriage if u happen to be catholic

else i bite!!


----------



## Sterling (May 19, 2011)

I was just stating my honest opinion and how to correct this fallacy. I haven't seen very much proof to defend what you call fact Smile72. No links to articles, pictures, videos, news statements. When you're called on it, you seem to just throw out insults and accusations which is the exact same card that is used in every single discrimination case. Please stop with the insults and personal attacks, they are extremely insulting and childish.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

Not really, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage all the countries that allow same sex marriage and such. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_parenting all the grops that support same sex parenting are found in General Consensus. I'm just a bit tired of hearing "It violate my religion, cuz religion rule the government."


----------



## Ritsuki (May 19, 2011)

Again, I'm not against the civil union, even the full one... I've always found that labelling people as homo or heterosexual is stupid. Do we separate people who like paprika flavored chips and those who like the nature ones ? No. I'm just saying that pretty much all the religions are really closed about the subject, and maybe we should let them win on that point (after all, nobody can stop your beliefs). That's maybe because I want to think that we're free to choose what we want to belive (even if it's not really the case in reality). I would be the first to grant marriage advantages to gay couples.

EDIT : I think that this thread will be closed soon 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 and I would really like to finish this debate with you smile72, so if you're interested, please contact me by PM


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

You just don't get it do you Ritsuki, gays want the goddamn word marriage, can't you understand.


----------



## Pong20302000 (May 19, 2011)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C78WupBvJUA[/youtube]

why cant we all just get along?
just let people do what they want
they say its a sin to break laws and stuff
whats everyone doing on temp hmmm?
here for only the homebrew?


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

That's awesome pong!


----------



## The Catboy (May 19, 2011)

@smile72
Even though I get your message, but hurling insults, curse words, and lack of facts really just seems to make you out to be an ass.


On topic: Personally I think the only thing separating Gay marriage from just marriage is the word gay. There's the problem, people labelled it and now it's ruined for years to come. Why can't we just call is marriage and leave it alone, why can't we just move on it life and constraint on the real issues in world.


----------



## Sterling (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> Not really, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage all the countries that allow same sex marriage and such. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_parenting all the groups that support same sex parenting are found in General Consensus. I'm just a bit tired of hearing "It violate my religion, cuz religion rule the government."


Umm, and have I not been very adamant in my belief that the separation of Church and State is a key component in the constitution? What the hell, has anyone been reading!? I myself am friends with a guy that was raised by his gay uncles. He has a weird accent and quite a few quirks that are attributed to his upbringing. He is constantly made fun of by his peers, and I seem to be one of his only friends on the account of everyone thinks he's gay (he really isn't).


----------



## koimayeul (May 19, 2011)

Pong20302000 said:
			
		

> [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C78WupBvJUA[/youtube]
> 
> why cant we all just get along?
> just let people do what they want
> ...



funny clip thanks for the laugh


----------



## Ritsuki (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> You just don't get it do you Ritsuki, gays want the goddamn word marriage, can't you understand.



That's the point. I think I hate words. What's important : the meaning of the marriage or the word 'marriage' ? It's just like flashcards : would you refuse a R4 because it's labeled as 'fake', even if it's exactly the same as the original one ?
It seems that church won't allow gay marriage. So we can fight forever, until they accept it, or simply change the laws and accept gay marriage without the religeous part.


----------



## Pong20302000 (May 19, 2011)

me: i have sinned father
i have used my flashcard for more than homebrew
i have a problem im addicted
what should i do?

father: get rid of the flashcard

me: hell no i paid for this thing


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

I think what your saying is he has a lisp, and to A Gay Little Cat Boy, I'm quite an ass in real life too, only difference is I know most of these people with "opposing beliefs" only have religious garbage, and wrongly cited religious garbage. Nothing more, nobody else has shown facts, I call them insults more so for fun. I could care less what they think, it's when they're trying to pass it off as facts. That religion has any place in government, and so on.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

No Ritsuki, athetists get real marriage outside of churches (my mother a Roman Catholic got married in a Courthouse.) I want the word marriage not civil union not domestic partner. I want to call my husband, my husband. Not my Domestic Partner.


----------



## The Catboy (May 19, 2011)

Ritsuki said:
			
		

> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah makes sense to me. Honestly even I who have been fighting for gay marriage, I really don't want to push the issue on the churches. Beliefs aren't something that will change overnight, it's a matter of years and generations who create the change. The best thing would be to have the state consider it a marriage.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

I'm okay without the religious part, I just want to have state recognition.


----------



## Sterling (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> I think what your saying is he has a lisp, and to A Gay Little Cat Boy, I'm quite an ass in real life too, only difference is I know most of these people with "opposing beliefs" only have religious garbage, and wrongly cited religious garbage. Nothing more, nobody else has shown facts, I call them insults more so for fun. I could care less what they think, it's when they're trying to pass it off as facts. That religion has any place in government, and so on.


You're hopeless. There is no arguing with people like you. The vocal minority give bad media and rap, and you're the kind of person that really give people the wrong impressions of gays. Your first post in the topic was reasonable enough, but you just won't accept others have different views. You refuse to see other's sides of the story, even when everyone else has. You're no better than the die-hard Christians that you seem to harbor all that hate for.

I am taking my leave of this topic, if any of you wish to continue the discussion, I will happily do it through PM. It is my hope that this topic can get back on track, and with as much civilized behavior as possible.


----------



## Ritsuki (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> No Ritsuki, athetists get real marriage outside of churches (my mother a Roman Catholic got married in a Courthouse.) I want the word marriage not civil union not domestic partner. I want to call my husband, my husband. Not my Domestic Partner.



Then call your husband, your husband. Who would blame you (beside of Mr. Doe, the old father of the Church) for that ? Btw, domestic partner is a really strange expression :/ I didn't know that there were other words for 'husband'. Anyway, what I want to say is that I think that it's better to fight for ideas than for words.


----------



## Nujui (May 19, 2011)

I say just let them be happy.


----------



## CCNaru (May 19, 2011)

I don't care to be honest, it's none of my business. I'm not going to support or act against it.


----------



## The Catboy (May 19, 2011)

Ritsuki said:
			
		

> smile72 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Domestic partner is weird 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I agree with Ritsuki on this. It's when you apply words to separate things is where you cause the problems in the first place.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

I accept that other people have different views, I've lived in a town where they had a parade for the Ku Klux Klan. I harbor no hate. But he's not my husband, is he if no recognizes it, I just want a marriage that is legal in my state is that so wrong.


----------



## p1ngpong (May 19, 2011)

You do all realise this is nothing more than a troll thread created by War just to get people to argue? War knows very well that this specific topic of discussion always results in people arguing, and the threads always end up locked.

This should just be closed.


----------



## koimayeul (May 19, 2011)

A Gay Little Catboy said:
			
		

> Ritsuki said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



domestic partner sound like a pet.. really


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

But that the technical term for Domestic Partnership.
P.S. Oh YAY 200 posts! Finally!


----------



## The Catboy (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> But that the technical term for Domestic Partnership.
> P.S. Oh YAY 200 posts! Finally!


So? It doesn't make it any less strange to say.


----------



## Ritsuki (May 19, 2011)

QUOTE said:
			
		

> I'm okay without the religious part, I just want to have state recognition.



I understand what you want, but imo, I think that if you really love your husband, you shouldn't care about things like that. You know, I'm black, and people call me a black person, an african, even a n**ger sometimes. And you know what ? They're right. I'm all that. I don't care how people call me, because I am what I am, and using a synonym won't change the nature of things.


----------



## smile72 (May 19, 2011)

No but legality will, domestic partnership even in the U.K. Never have the full benefits of marriage, and that's because it's not marriage.I'm sorry but I won't settle for any less than marriage.


----------



## koimayeul (May 19, 2011)

p1ngpong said:
			
		

> You do all realise this is nothing more than a troll thread created by War just to get people to argue? War knows very well that this specific topic of discussion always results in people arguing, and the threads always end up locked.
> 
> This should just be closed.


Yep i figured that few pages ago not seeing his own opinion on the subject anywhere and just the name .. War.. and the status. take it easy.. its trollfest

i agree this should just be closed now through many POV im guessing all have been said..  from my part anyway

to sum up my opinion join with Foxi4  

QUOTE(Foxi4 @ May 19 2011, 12:07 PM) *
Everything depends on what you mean by "marriage" IMO.

If you mean a legal union between two people based on partnership for inherritence and tax purposes, go on ahead and marry in whatever combinations you want.

If you mean a union with a religious background, then it depends on your religion. If you happen to be a Catholic, don't demand marriage - Catholicism doesn't allow homosexual marriage and that's *it*. You're free to change your religion if you really want to.


----------



## Ritsuki (May 19, 2011)

smile72 said:
			
		

> No but legality will, domestic partnership even in the U.K. Never have the full benefits of marriage, and that's because it's not marriage.I'm sorry but I won't settle for any less than marriage.



Then that's a good reason to fight 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 I totally agree with you. Everyone should have the same rights. That's one of the basic things in a democracy.


----------



## GeekyGuy (May 19, 2011)

p1ngpong said:
			
		

> You do all realise this is nothing more than a troll thread created by War just to get people to argue? War knows very well that this specific topic of discussion always results in people arguing, and the threads always end up locked.
> 
> *This should just be closed.*



QFT


----------

