Should gay mariages be legal?

[quoudam72]

I do not agree with "gays" about their lifestyle but if they are two adult "homosexuals" why can't they be in a relationship? Now for you "gays" in the audience that does not mean that I want a memebership with the rainbow coaltion. I just think that even if you make it iilegal for them to be "life partners" they are going to do it anyway.

Gay "unions" should be legal they should suffer just like everyone else. We do not have to call them "marriages" as not to offend the religious population but maybe "civil union" or something of that nature. I mean in reality you just have recongize "homosexuals" as a segment of the population a very colorful segment but still a part of the population.

[Dante]

Just because my text is magenta doesn't mean that we all go colour-mad at every oppertunity.

[Dude_Doc]

I think the gay movement are "too loud". Why not just keep for yourself, why do you have to go out and have all those "pride festivals" and those things?

[quoudam72]

Just because my text is magenta doesn't mean that we all go colour-mad at every oppertunity.

??? Talk to the hand Dust Scout. That was not really a personal attack on your chosen color scheme. :P

[nemafakei]

I think that we need to first consider what the purposes of a marriage are, and within that context decide how it may apply to homosexuality.

[quoudam72]

Would we be discussing from a political, spiritual, religious or just a text point of view of marriage?

[nemafakei]

Indeed: Let us consider them all, then decide which still apply.

[Acriku]

From a finanicial standpoint, it'd be most advantageous for the homosexuals to be able to get married. From a religious standpoint, it depends on your religion. There is a gay bishop being supported by his fellow believers up in New England somewhere, so maybe this is the beginning of tolerance for gays among the religious.

[quoudam72]

First what is the purpose of "homosexuality", there can be no reproduction of the human species in it's state of being. The traditional setting of marriage is offset because the "couple" can not have children biologically. Therefore propagation of the human species can not be acheieved in a "homosexual" state of being.

[Acriku]

Quondam, there are occurrences of homosexuality in the animal kingdom as well, but it doesn't do anything to hurt the species' survival. And neither will it hurt our's. If we need anything, it's LESS heterosexuals. We're growing like cockroaches.

[quoudam72]

I know about "homosexuality" in the animal kingdom but as far as our speices having less "heterosexuals" is not going to help us as a race of beings. I disagree with your statement Acriku-. I disagree because say even if population control was the problem what happens when you have too many homosexuals and not enough heterosexuals the human race could be thrown into a very complex sitution where it reaches a near level of extinction due do forced population control.

[Edric O]

Seeing how the human population is growing at an exponential rate, I really think it would be in our own interest to stop breeding like rabbits...

But anyway, back on topic:

Regardless of your personal beliefs, you have no right to impose those beliefs on others. It's your right to believe that gay marriage is "immoral", but you have no right to stop people from getting married just because you disagree with their love.

Having said that, however, I think the word "marriage" is not a good term for this. Marriage is a traditional religious union between a man and a woman. It would be better to call them "unions", "life relationships", or invent a completely new name for them altogether.

You know, that's actually a very good idea. "Gay marriage" sounds a bit like an oxymoron. It would be better to use a completely new name for it. So... Dust Scout, do you have any ideas? :)

[Acriku]

Canada made it legal, I say we jump on the bandwagon.

[Gobalopper]

Actually it was just two provinces not the entire country, although the plan is to make it legal everywhere, some provinces are against it though.

[Duncan_ghola]

it would be simple to call a gay marriage something else besides a marriage

[TMA_1]

A great quote from I Claudius expresses how I feel. "let all of the poisons that are in the mud, hatch out."

let the world have it's evils. Let them allow homosexual marriages, then let them allow incestual marriage. Let them soon allow consentual bonds between preteen boys and middle aged men. All of these things are being put up in courts around the western world right now.

Why is homosexuality any better than consentual sex between a brother and a sister? Both are just as unnatural. Why not pedophilic relationships if they are consentual, and parents agree to it? It is between two consenting people.

See, all of this filth and evil will not stop, we are only giving those people even more reason to accomplish their desires. It is the romeo and juliette syndrome. The more you fight against it, the more it grows. So I say let all of these evils hatch out, and let them all die. I could care less.

[Acriku]

In most homosexual relationships, both individuals are consenting adults, absolutely no victims as there would be in a pedophilic relationship. I, too, wondered if there was any difference between the two relationships, but it wasn't long before I found the answer. Legalizing homosexual marriages certainly won't lead to legalizing pedophilic relationships. That's just stupid. As long as there are no victims, then what the fuck is your problem with it?

In incestual relationships, as long as there is safe sex being practiced, there is absolutely no problem with it. As long as there are no victims, of course. If a pregnancy does occur, that's why there are abortions. But if both individuals are wearing condoms and the woman taking birth control pills, then that should hardly ever happen. If both are consenting, and practice safe sex, then what the fuck is your problem with it?

[Dante]

Why is homosexuality any better than consentual sex between a brother and a sister? Both are just as unnatural. Why not pedophilic relationships if they are consentual, and parents agree to it? It is between two consenting people.

"The only unnatural sex act is that which you cannot perform."

- Alfred Kinsey (1894-1956).

If it's unnatural, then why does it exist? Everything that exists is natural.

As for a new name, which is probably best; well everyone would have different opinions. Some people actually want it to be called "marriage" because they think that it means that the couple would have the same rights as a religiously married couple.

Personally I think it's best not to upset people by being more difficult than we need to be. 'Civil union' just sounds like a business deal though. "We're civilly unified" just doesn't have the same overtones as "We're married." Does it? In which case, since similar synonyms (amalgamation, unification, matrimony, merger, combination, bond, connection, wedlock...) all have the same problems, what can we do?

Why, go back to Latin of course! Coniunctio literally means 'union' but sounds so much better. ( I tried 'marriage,' but got nothing other than 'matrimonium.' ) And that way everyone's happy, because so few people speak latin anymore. Well, every cloud has a silver lining I suppose...

I think the gay movement are "too loud". Why not just keep for yourself, why do you have to go out and have all those "pride festivals" and those things?

Because the only way we can be accepted is for us to be noticed and acknowledged. What, you think that we're going to cower in our rooms or walk quietly in the streets because we're different? It's called Gay Pride because we're proud of what we are. And when you're proud of something you want to show it off.

Politically allowing gay coniunctio

[DukeLeto]

Of course gay "marraiges" should be legal. For that matter, I think they should be able to adopt, too. Just because they're gay doesn't mean they're any less deserving of basic human rights. Saying gays shouldn't be allowed to wed is like saying blacks or Indians shouldn't be allowed to get married. It's just bigotry, plain and simple.

[SurlyPIG]

I just don't see the point in watering down the meaning of marriage even more then it already has been.

And I don't see the point in maintaining the meaning of marriage when it has already been so 'watered down', so to speak.

Granted you can get married without going through a priest/church, Vegas an obvious example, but it is still between a man and woman. From the dictionary: "the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family." The idea behind marriage has been to start a family and it has always been between a man and a woman.

Since when? Not all married couples have kids. Not all of them can have kids, and not all of them want kids. Ever heard the expression DINK (double income, no kids)? There's a pair of DINKs that live across the street from me. And you do realise that the definition you posted specifies men and women as plurals (not a man and a woman thus it is inclusive of polygomist marraiges?

Whats in a name? Why should they care what its called if the word marriage means nothing to them. It does however mean something to people who are religious, in fact its one of the most important.

Because the word does mean something to them. It represents a lifelong personal commitment that just isn't associated with common law partnerships.

Right now it's illegal for two loving adult people of the same sex to get married, but the state has voiced no objections to thinks like "Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire" in which a bunch of bimbos compete in a pageant to see which one of them gets to marry a rich, dirty old man. Then there's "Married by America" in which a studio audience selcts two random people to be married. I have heard no objections about any of this crap, but the minute gay marraiges start to emerge, there's a whole whopla of opposition an the Pope starts foaming at the mouth. Unbelievable.

I suppose as long as they're recognized legally by the state in some form that is enough, but I think those who are against should consider some of the above examples of what marraige has become and ask themselves why they are really in such opposition.

[Acriku]

Such is our country's hypocrisy...

[nemafakei]

"Coniunctio literally means 'union'"

How about using the word "conjunction"? Hence 'to conjoin', 'to be conjoined' etc?

[Navaros]

dust scout: way to go on quoting the Sodomite/pedophile/zoophilia-loving pervert Kinsey. i bet you'll be quoting Freud next, who is all of the above, and wanted to do his own mother too

for the first time in his life, TMA said something remotely intelligent in this thread. i am impressed.

to Akriku: no real religion will ever tolerate "gays". the Bible, the Torah, and the Koran do not change. God's Will never changes. God said to execute them back in the day, and God is just as intolerant of such debauchery as He was on Day 1 of the Universe. Any truly religious person will follow God's Will and obey it.

what you see on the news about "gay bishops" etc. are not Churches or religions. they are evil dens of filth and hypocracy; they say what their degenerate customers want to hear because it's good for Business. not because they love God. in fact, all of these devil-inspired Houses of Evil are committing the worst possible sin: deliberately perverting the Will of God and saying that their evil lies are God's Plan. that is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, there is no worse sin, and any hypocrite who claims to be Christian yet promotes false doctrine, saying it is from God, will be punished in the worst rendition of Hell possible

you are also wrong when you say that Sodomites only affect each other. having them in society brings plagues upon society. G.R.I.D. (sometimes called "A.I.D.S." due to political pressure) started by Sodomites, most likely one of them had sex with a monkey (not a far cry from sodomizing another man) and hence it began to spread amongst Sodomites like wildfire, and eventually thanks to "bisexuals" as you call them, to actual normal humans.

if there were no "gays", A.I.D.S. would not be in the human gene pool. that is a scientific fact

as well, you are disregarding the negative spiritual impact it has on society. shoving the message down innocent childrens' throats that "it's ok to be gay" [it is not, of course!] leads them down a wrongful, evil path that will damn their souls to Hell. even if they themselves don't become Sodomites, their brainwash-induced support for it will condemn them in the face of God (as evidenced in my direct Bible quotes in the Ordos45 thread which was Dungeonized - btw funny how that thread only got Dungeonized because in that thread there was a strong contingent of many fed2k members who were opposing the evil idea that "homosexuality is ok" , as every sane person will ::) )

[Gobalopper]

This was brought up at another forum. If being gay isn't a choice, in otherwords its "in your genes", wouldn't that have been removed from the human race over time since they wouldn't reproduce and hence pass those genes onto their children?

[Edric O]

No, because genetics isn't that simple. The "gay gene" could be a recessive gene. One that many people carry, but whose effects are only felt by few of them.

It could also be a random mutation that simply has a very high chance of occuring (compared to all the other mutations, which are far more rare) in each new generation.