Gay Marraige - rantage!!!

[mike the guy]

homosexuals are people and deserve to be treated equally. i see no reason to oppose their marraige. most Right Wing Religious Fundamenalists with go with that "sex is a gift from god and is for expressing love between a man and a woman with the intent of procreation." blah blah blah. let's take a minute to look at your own church: what about all the people who marry without inending to have children?? are you going to ban them from marrying? well what if they jus don't have sex, but of course, you'd never no becuase what goes in a bedroom between 2 consenting adults is NONE OF THE CHURCH'S NOR ANYONE ELSE'S BUSINESS. ooohhh homosexuality is a sin!!! you know what else is an abomination to god??? overpopulating the world when there are millions starving to death, just becuase god doesn't want you to use a condom. i think it's time to read your bible buddy, becuase if i remember correctly the reason JESUS CHRIST, YOUR SAVIOUR came in the first place was to sh0ow people the error of taking everything in the bible too literally and MISSING THE FOREST FOR THE TREES!!! and perhaps it's time i brought about the most overstated, yet still strongest statement: NOT EVERYONE BELIVES WHAT YOU BELIEVE. and just becuase canada and america are countries which promote freedom of religion, and freedom of speech doesn't mean you can use that to preach discrimination about people who CHOOSE different religions or ways of life causing no harm to you. it may be your responsibilty as a Christian to uphold the laws of god, and i respect that, But it is my Responsibility as a human being to uphold EQAULITY and fight this discrimination. and homosexuals wouldn't have to marry in your church, they can be married by the government, like so many heterosexual couples. leave he homosexuals alone, all they want to do is have a commited and loving relationship, and you are trying to prevent that.... in the name of god?!

i think this all works back to the corruption in the government and the views that homosexuals aren't people. well what if i were to say "blacks shouldn't be allowed to marry." well that's fucking RACISM!!!! they're not hurting anyone by being black, just like homosexuals aren't hurting anyone by being gay.

and even worse is people who claim to be okay wih homosexuals, just suggest that maybe they shouldn' be homosexuals around them...... again: "i'm okay with jews, i'd just rather they be jewish somewhere else with their jewish friend." i'm hoping that someone is seeing the point i'm trying to make.

homosexuals are people and deserve equal rights.

[Rastafari]

Abso-fucking-lutely
Equal Rights and Justice

Oh, did you hear about Bush's AIDs plan in Africa to appease these stupid fucking religious right? He is urging leaders of the nations to condone condom use and just to preach about abstinence. Now, I would like to see a world where this could maybe be the case, but its hot and boring over there and this shit will not happen!

[Dirty Commie]

Excellent post, good point.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Should LGBT people be allowed to marry? Uhhhh... YES. Coupling two loving adults is fine by me, regardless of sexual orientation. To all the social conservatives who will see this: if you do not want LGBTs to marry, do not do it in your church. And as for that bullshit about gay marriage harming family values--if LGBT marriages is enough to destabilize your marriage, then your marriage was obviously pretty flimsy to begin with!

[Felicia]

h-e-l-l-o????

It's legal here! duh ;)

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

I would be hard-pressed to find anyone around here (redneck country) who would oppose gay marriages, so I would certainly be surprised if anyone here would. I would hope that we (capies and commies) can at least agree that prejudice, descrimination, and homophobia are all things we should put aside...even though they can all be attributed to the ruling class and it's tools of oppression such as religion and stereotypes.

[Felicia]

Quote: from Victorcommie on 1:46 am on July 22, 2003
I would be hard-pressed to find anyone around here (redneck country) who would oppose gay marriages, so I would certainly be surprised if anyone here would. I would hope that we (capies and commies) can at least agree that prejudice, descrimination, and homophobia are all things we should put aside...even though they can all be attributed to the ruling class and it's tools of oppression such as religion and stereotypes.
Feed that to the republicans...... they'll recite you verses from the bible..... "well, mathew says this, and ezekial says that..... you're going to hell for being gay.... yada yada yada"

*rolls eyes*

Someone need to smack them with a sack of bricks...... I'll volunteer :angry:

(Edited by felicia at 1:49 am on July 22, 2003)

[elijahcraig]

Gays should be treated as equals, there is no compromise with idiocy on this issue. I am Bisexual, and I should be able to marry a male if I wish.

Only bigots oppose this.

[Ex Nihilo]

No.

No fucking way.

Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. I mean, you wanna be gay that's your business, but there's no way in hell your getting married. Case closed.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Ex Nihilo on 8:32 am on July 22, 2003
No.

No fucking way.

Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. I mean, you wanna be gay that's your business, but there's no way in hell your getting married. Case closed.

How can anyone be such a dick??? What right do you have to say what is right or wrong or morral? Thankfuly no body will ever listen to you when desciding any major policy.

PS did you know that the C of E has now got a gay bishop and a AB of Cantebury is infavour of gay rights within the church?

[Ghost Writer]

See link (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=22&topic=2649).

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Quote: from Ex Nihilo on 8:32 am on July 22, 2003
No.

No fucking way.

Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. I mean, you wanna be gay that's your business, but there's no way in hell your getting married. Case closed.


Haha, lol.

If you do allow them to be gay at all, why are you oppossed to a marriage?

A marriage is nothing more then an official declaration of (sexual) love.

Do you take away their right to bind themselves before the law?

[Ghost Writer]

Not exactly a well laid out argument in favor of gay marriages. Nothing you have said provides justification for changing a tradition that mankind has had since the birth of civilization. Why should it change? Why should the state sanction gay marriages? I have heard why you hate people who disagree with this point, yet I do not understand why you are in favor of it. Why should a predominantly religious custom be changed to suit a population that is, in general, more interested in having promiscuous sex with multiple partners, rather that monogomous relationships? Why should religious custom change to promote a lifestyle not consistent with religious doctrine? Why destroy a tradition that has work so well to help maintain an ordered society, in order to pander to a political movement that promotes anarchy? Why bend reality?

[Sabocat]

Quote: from Ex Nihilo on 3:32 am on July 22, 2003
No.

No fucking way.

Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. I mean, you wanna be gay that's your business, but there's no way in hell your getting married. Case closed.


If you wanna be gay that your business? Then why the hell wouldn't marriage be their business? What do you care? Jealous? Why shouldn't two people be allowed to be happy and share the same rights of property and benefits of marriage as anyone else?


Grow up.

[Felicia]

Quote: from Ex Nihilo on 4:32 am on July 22, 2003
No.

No fucking way.

Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. I mean, you wanna be gay that's your business, but there's no way in hell your getting married. Case closed.

Ok, tell me one reason why gays/lesbians should not get married. Don't say that because it's against christianity because you can easily be married before law and not "god". The government should have absolutely NO RIGHT to tell you who you cannot marry (unless, of course, they're family or under age). For someone who subscribes to this "I'm living a life of freedom" lie, gays should most certainly be allowed to wed.

Isn't it a free country? Itsn't that what you tell everyone.....?? It's false advertising.

Stop with the lies already, shit, what a rip-off your country preaches!

elijahcraig I welcome you to Canada, where you can marry any gender that you wish, and then take it back to your home country and it's still legal, they can bite our asses! :cheesy: :angry:

[Dirty Commie]

Some one should have the right to make a decision about who they want to marry, if you don't want homosexuals in your church, ok, if they rest of your churchgoers want to allow it, than you're screwed, give up, I thought that we lived in a society wheere people could make their own decisions.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 12:46 pm on July 22, 2003
Not exactly a well laid out argument in favor of gay marriages. Nothing you have said provides justification for changing a tradition that mankind has had since the birth of civilization. Why should it change? Why should the state sanction gay marriages? I have heard why you hate people who disagree with this point, yet I do not understand why you are in favor of it. Why should a predominantly religious custom be changed to suit a population that is, in general, more interested in having promiscuous sex with multiple partners, rather that monogomous relationships? Why should religious custom change to promote a lifestyle not consistent with religious doctrine? Why destroy a tradition that has work so well to help maintain an ordered society, in order to pander to a political movement that promotes anarchy? Why bend reality?


It's not a good argument that you shouldn't allow gaymarrigages because it will break traditions. Times change, traditions are born and broken constantly.

A long time, since the beginning of mankind, people have been par example dancing around fires for the bless of gods. This is probaly one of the most oldest traditions. It's still beeing practised today by some people. Your ancestors have probaly done it to.

Yet, I don't think that you're dancing around fires to bless your food. Why not?

It doesn't make much sense does it?

The same thing goes for me, I don't see why we should keep traditions which are totally unnessecary.

Even your beloved church can change and there is a rising movement within the church which demands the approval of Gay marriage.

If priests are allowed to break the celibacy, which has been a tradition a long time, why are gays then not allowed to break this old and foolish tradition?

[dopediana]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 12:46 pm on July 22, 2003
Not exactly a well laid out argument in favor of gay marriages. Nothing you have said provides justification for changing a tradition that mankind has had since the birth of civilization. Why should it change? Why should the state sanction gay marriages? I have heard why you hate people who disagree with this point, yet I do not understand why you are in favor of it. Why should a predominantly religious custom be changed to suit a population that is, in general, more interested in having promiscuous sex with multiple partners, rather that monogomous relationships? Why should religious custom change to promote a lifestyle not consistent with religious doctrine? Why destroy a tradition that has work so well to help maintain an ordered society, in order to pander to a political movement that promotes anarchy? Why bend reality?


may i remind you that in greece and rome, great civilizations, homosexuality was a common practice? what about rumi and shams, both deeply intellectual people. there's even a passage int he bible (often edited out) that insinuates jesus' delving into homosexuality.

and straights don't have promiscuous relationships? relationships OUTSIDE of marriage? extramarital relations? damn right they do. i'd tell you a special case i've got at the office today, but it's confidential information.

[mentalbunny]

By the way, AK47, who's the gay bishop? If you're thinking about the one of whom all the fuss was made, he's not a bishop, he turned down the position because of pressure.

I can understand not allowing religious marriages of same sex partners or partners where one, or two, or the couple are transexual, but there should be some kind of legal marriage, or recognition of being partners, as unmarried hetero couples have in the UK under law. I think gay couples in the UK also have this in the same way, but they don't in the US. However that does not mean there are no advatnages in the US for gay couples, some less conservative companies do offer benefits to gay couples as well as hetero couples, which is at least something, no matter how small.

Religion totally aside, the law should recognise any couples after a certain length of time cohabiting or whatever. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but you have to see it from their point of view, you don't choose to be gay, you don't choose to feel like a member of the opposite sex, even though you do choose to have the actual treatment and operation. It's really no big deal if you have a sex change, it gives you a chance to be more completely you, it's a good thing, my sister is much better now she's female, and her girlfriend is going to have a sex change as well, it's pretty weird!!! By the way, they've been together for about 4 years and I'm pretty certan they're going to spend the rest of their lives together. They don't worry about the whole relgious thing, they're both atheists, but it does hurt some transexuals, there are transexual preists so why can't there be transexual marriages?

GW, traditions aren't necessarily a good thing, in fact they are often the opposite ( for example, slavery was seen as traditional, yet that was hardly a good thing, and if you say otherwise, I won't believe you really think that). The main point about marriage is that it has various advantages over another kind of relationship, it's recognised in law, you have the authority to decide what happens to your partner when on a life-support machine, etc. It's not the whole "in the eyes of God" thing, it's more practical, that's why gay and transexual couples want to be recognised. GW you are also using stereotypes in your arguement and that's pathetic. Many gays would rather be promiscuous and not settle down, as do heterosexuals, so they don't get married, simple! Why should we deny homosexuals, etc, to have the choice?

Sorry, that's a bit of a rambling post.

[Blibblob]

If I remember right, in the United States a marrage is nothing more than a contract between two people. Sepperation of church and state, you can be married in a church, but then you have to sign a contract to make it legal. So, trying to stop people from marrying somebody of the same sex is a government restriction, and therefore, tyranny. So, the Church has no say in who can and cannot be married, they can forbid people to marry on their property though. Therefore any Religious Right's argument is now NULL AND VOID, so FUCK YOU. And does the US forbid a contract between two people of the same sex? I don't know if it does or doesn't. Can't remember...

[elijahcraig]

No.

No fucking way.

Marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. I mean, you wanna be gay that's your business, but there's no way in hell your getting married. Case closed.

What the fuck is that? You have NO SAY in what people do with THEIR lives. Stop the homophobic bullshit.

[Ex Nihilo]

Marriage is, and always will be, a strictly heterosexual institution. We're not breaking thousands of years of tradition for a minority that is less than ten percent of the population.

[Moskitto]

By the way, AK47, who's the gay bishop? If you're thinking about the one of whom all the fuss was made, he's not a bishop, he turned down the position because of pressure.

yep, I've even heard his letter to the Bishop of Oxford turning down the position.

My brother says "my only problem is that he's unrepentant and it's a sin" I tried pointing out to him that there's 28 references in the bible to any sexual activity or thought being a sin and that god doesn't create people who's entire nature is sin, therefore homosexuality isn't actually a sin. But the religious homophobe doesn't understand this.

I was argueing with annother one that it isn't a sin because it isn't a choice because someone does not choose to stick his nob up annother guy's arse rather into a super model therefore the bible which was written prior to the age of enlightenment is wrong. And he was argueing that it is a choice because it's a sin and god wouldn't create people who have to sin. Which one sounds more logical to you?

[Xprewatik RED]

Quote: from Ex Nihilo on 1:00 am on July 23, 2003
Marriage is, and always will be, a strictly heterosexual institution. We're not breaking thousands of years of tradition for a minority that is less than ten percent of the population.


wtf...
So two peope can't go and be declared partners in life if they truly love each other? It's not breaking any tradition ,its two people who have decided to spend the rest of their lives together...
I guess your also against inter-racial couples too....
Also, because they are a minority you believe they have less rights than you? You cannont declare because you and the majority do one thing, that a minority cannot hope to achieve that same goal. Your racist Ex Nihilo plain and simple. Although I am straight i hold no animosity toward gays or lesbians, because i recognize everyone should have equal rights.

[Charlie]

Quote: from Ex Nihilo on 10:00 pm on July 22, 2003
Marriage is, and always will be, a strictly heterosexual institution. We're not breaking thousands of years of tradition for a minority that is less than ten percent of the population.


I thought we didn't allow this nazi bullshit.

The best excuse you can come up with to opress a group is tradition?

Nice try, bucko.

[Purple]

The traditions of marriage was mas made a very long time ago when people didn't even knew the meaning of "gay", and the traditions has been formed, while over-looking homosexuality because it hasn't been an important issue, and those who we're gay was to ashamed or confused to admit, so traditions have had no issue with homosexuality, and when it became an issue the "norms" had already been formed; and there was really no room for change..... the only reason gay people couldn't have married for such a long time is because of disriminaction, and maybe people say that they are not discriminating, but if there where no such thing it would have already been allowed, and it shouldn't have been such a big fuss about it... the only reason some people are against homosexuality is either because they are racist , or because they look at gay people as their own "culture" and they dont want them to be a part of their own culture, because they dont look at it as normal, and are being racist....

Anyway; fuck all you scared-of-gay-people-people...

Pancies....

[mentalbunny]

Moskitto tell your ignorant brother that he's getting repentance and remorse mixed up. The guy is repentant, which is why his relationship is not sexual, but he is not remorseful, because he sees no reason to be ashamed of having a healthy, non-sexual, loving relationship with another man. Repentance and remorse are not the same thing. My mum's a very learned Christian, we were talking about the situation and she explained it to me.

Ex Nihilo, if you take into account all the bisexuals and transexuals, it's more than 10%. That's a substantial amount. Besides, even if it were only 0.5%, or even smaller, who are we to deny these people a loving, secure relationship which is recognised by the law? Just because they're different, they cannot help their sexual orientation, like you cannot help your race. Being anti-gay is basically like being racist, you can choose neither your skin colour nor your sexual orientation, current fashions of lesbian chic and Michael Jackson excluded.

[Felicia]

Quote: from Ex Nihilo on 6:00 pm on July 22, 2003
Marriage is, and always will be, a strictly heterosexual institution. We're not breaking thousands of years of tradition for a minority that is less than ten percent of the population.

are you COMPLETELY STUPID?

GAY MARRIAGE IS LEGAL IN CANADA, I COULD MARRY A WOMAN IF I WANTED TOO. AMERICANS HAVE ALREADY BEEN TO CANADA AND HAVE GOTTEN MARRIED!!!!!! BITE ME!!!!!!!

[Ex Nihilo]

I don't consider them to be real marriages then. They're more like the defilement of a sacred institution in the name of equality.

And before any of you bastards start labeling me a religous nut, I'm an atheist.

[Felicia]

Quote: from Ex Nihilo on 8:38 pm on July 22, 2003
I don't consider them to be real marriages then. They're more like the defilement of a sacred institution in the name of equality.

And before any of you bastards start labeling me a religous nut, I'm an atheist.
They are married by ministers of faith. Aswell as by regular law. There's no reason why gays can't marry, hell, gays have been having sex with each other as long as straight people have, what's the difference between now allowing one to claim the other on income tax? Many are already married by commonlaw, now they just get a piece of paper, and maybe some security that their relationship is really stable and can last.

Marriage is only "sacred" if you want to be religous about it. So? Should only athiest homosexuals get married by law? Marriage does not have to involve religion and "god", it's done by law now, it doesn't need to have anything to do with religion!!! Marriage has developed, and now it's having it's turn with homosexual unions, I see absolutely no problem with that.

[Charlie]

Quote: from Ex Nihilo on 12:38 am on July 23, 2003
I don't consider them to be real marriages then. They're more like the defilement of a sacred institution in the name of equality.

And before any of you bastards start labeling me a religous nut, I'm an atheist.


No, not allowing homosexuals to marry is the defilement of human rights.

[Ex Nihilo]

Define human rights.

[Charlie]

Rights and liberties that all humans deserve. In this case the right to recieve all the same freedoms as straight people and be treated as equals in society, more specifcally the freedom to have a secure relationship that is recognized by the state.

(Edited by Charlie at 2:05 am on July 23, 2003)

[Totalitarian]

The DNA molecule is a symbol of heterosexuality, male and female forever intertwined. "Marriage" is a traditionally heterosexual ritual, so i don't know why gay people would want their coupling to be "approved by the State or Church" as an "official" relationship.

Maybe some of them think they will get increased privileges?

[Charlie]

Alright. Maybe I'm missing what some DNA molecule has to do with this, but whatever.

Marriage is a traditionally heterosexual ritual. Yes, traditionally, but traditions change.
Fuck that reactionary bullshit used to opress people through the veil of tradition.

Traditionally, only men voted.
Traditionally, blacks were slaves to the white.

Homosexuals simply want what straight people have had for so long- the right to a legally recognized union. It's a sign of their acceptance into our society, a sign or no longer be cultural outcasts.
Why should they be denied of this right?

Totalitarian, from your avatar I am assuming you are indeed a communist. If I'm right about that I'd like to ask you one question- how can you aspire to revolutionize all of society and yet denounce the revolution of something as simple as one tradition?

[Ghost Writer]

Let's have a look at our iconoclasts, shall we?

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/gay_pride_paris.jpg

This is at the heart of your "gay rights" movement. Do you honestly mean to tell me that these men are truly interested in a serious marriage? Do you really think that they could go for one day without having sex with a different partner? One assumption that I notice many of you are making is that all gay people are interested in monogomous relationships. If that were true, why then are homosexual men the #1 transmitters of HIV. Why are 1 out of 10 gay men infected with this disease (1/3 infection rate for gay black men)? Why have we seen a an recent resurgence of syphilus and other venarial diseases in the gay community? The picture shows those types of people behind the gay agenda, and yes, they are radical in nature. To presume that these radicals actually care about the binding contractual obligations that come with marriage is absurd. The true goal is to reduce the effectiveness of their enemies customs and mores, thereby normalizing certain degenerate behaviors, like public sado masocism. Utimately, I believe the goal is the same for the radical leftists on this board, the destruction of civilization. The replacement of everything good with all that is against the natural progression of man. Gay marriage would not mark further evolution of man but a devolution of society as a whole.

[Xprewatik RED]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 11:36 am on July 23, 2003
Let's have a look at our iconoclasts, shall we?

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/gay_pride_paris.jpg

This is at the heart of your "gay rights" movement. Do you honestly mean to tell me that these men are truly interested in a serious marriage? Do you really think that they could go for one day without having sex with a different partner? One assumption that I notice many of you are making is that all gay people are interested in monogomous relationships. If that were true, why then are homosexual men the #1 transmitters of HIV. Why are 1 out of 10 gay men infected with this disease (1/3 infection rate for gay black men)? Why have we seen a an recent resurgence of syphilus and other venarial diseases in the gay community? The picture shows those types of people behind the gay agenda, and yes, they are radical in nature. To presume that these radicals actually care about the binding contractual obligations that come with marriage is absurd. The true goal is to reduce the effectiveness of their enemies customs and mores, thereby normalizing certain degenerate behaviors, like public sado masocism. Utimately, I believe the goal is the same for the radical leftists on this board, the destruction of civilization. The replacement of everything good with all that is against the natural progression of man. Gay marriage would not mark further evolution of man but a devolution of society as a whole.

Ghost Writer your ideas are so mornic and racist. Its hard to comprehend that you believe all gays are like this. Do you think most gays even give a damn about politics? I have never met a gay communist in my life.
You just hate gay people because somehow they you feel they are grose, or less, or inferior. I sugest you listen to yourself, you make no sense. You sound like those people that oppressed the Jews. If two gay people get married it will change nothing except that they are going to live together for the rest of there life.
In democracy if they want to break that agreement and start over, THAN IT IS THEIR OWN BUISNESS.

[Danton]

Let me find the most stereotypical images of gay people imaginable and then quote nonsense statistics without any evidence to support them.

Ghost writer do you know any homosexuals? do you realize that they are a broad cross section of society?
It's true, some of them dont wear garish costumes and act camply, my god some of them are even conservative and, blasphemy! Would you beleive some of these freaks are even church goers and, wait for it - members of the clergy, the goverment, the military etc...

"Victoria o muerte"

[Ghost Writer]

It's important to distinguish between gay people, and the political interests that hide behind the mask of homosexuality. Clearly, I make the distinction. It is you who is incapable of separating between the two.

Furthermore, could you tell me how homosexuals constitute a race of people? I am interested to see if anyone has isolated this homosexual gene everyone seems to assume exists.

In addition, my statistics come from the CDC and the Kaiser Family Foundation. Look them up, if you don't believe me.

And yes, I know some homosexuals. Most of them don't agree with gay marriage either. It is this radical left wing political interest group that I am oppossed to, not gays. I could care less if people ingage in this activity, but I don't think their relationship need to be consecratedby either church or state.

Nothing I have seen provides the justification for changing a standard that has been with us since the dawn of civilization. Since you are the liberals who promote this change, the burden of proof falls on you. So tell me, why should we change the long standing institute of marriage? What's the argument? Nobody is telling gays that they can't have sex, but why should we desecrate a tradition that has been reserved for a man and woman? Why shouldn't an incestuous couple be allowed the same priviledge, so long as one of the parties is sterilized? Why can't I marry myself, or my dog? Why shouldn't I be allowed to practice polygamy? Shouldn't I be allowed to marry a 14 year old if it is consentual?

Why should the government legislate with respect to mores? Do you know the answer?

[Danton]

The fact that you equate gay marrige with incest, peodphlia, beastiality and narcissism indicates your ignorant and bigoted opinions of gay relationships.

Why? Because as tax paying members of a free society gay couples should enjoy the same legal rights as hetro equivilants, life partners of any gender should be entitled to the same legal protection, life insurance, wills, alimony - the right to be recognized as next of kin, to be able visit sick patners in hospital...etc...I wont bother checking your statistics as they are irrelevant to the argument and probably cooked up by some right wing focus group.....




"Victoria o muerte"

[Ghost Writer]

Alimony and life insurance for gay couples I disagree with, wills and death bed visits I do not.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 12:10 pm on July 23, 2003
Alimony and life insurance for gay couples I disagree with, wills and death bed visits I do not.

Why should a gay couple be less entitled to life insurance than, a streight couple?

I fail to understand your reasoning in this matter, opther than that you do not understand homosexuality, and therefor fear it. Because of this you wish to create barriers against it, both legal and finacial.

[mentalbunny]

Homosexuality is really very similar to heterosexuality. I say this as a bisexual, when I'm attracted to a girl it's basically the same as being attracted to a guy, it's not always just lust or whatever, in both cases it can be the desire to have a proper relationship and get to know the person, not just physical attraction. Just because I'm attracted to both sexes does not mean I am promiscuous, I hold fidelity as highly important in a relationship. So why shouldn't I be able to marry the woman I'm in love with? If we are prepared to commit ourselves to a life-long relationship then why should this not be recognised by the State? So what if we can't have children naturally, which is the arguement of Catholics, etc, there are loads of hetero couples who can't or don't have kids, why are wee any different? Just because we're members of the same sex, is that it? It's a question of anatomy, nothing else, and I believe that humans are so much more than just their bodies.

I have more to say but no time, I'll post agina later.

[canikickit]

Norm,

This is at the heart of your "gay rights" movement.

No it's not, it's two gay people dressed wierd.

Do you honestly mean to tell me that these men are truly interested in a serious marriage?

So what if they're not? That is hardly evidence that they wish to undermine the traditions and customs of "normal" society. Why should they continue those traditions, are they not free to do whatever the hell they want?

Do you really think that they could go for one day without having sex with a different partner?

I don't think everyone has the choice. Sometimes you just don't get lucky. I know I don't.
Even if they don't, or don't want to, so what? Promiscuity isn't illegal, it may be immoral by your scewed definition, but you can't do anything about it.

One assumption that I notice many of you are making is that all gay people are interested in monogomous relationships.

Who cares? Mind your own business.

Nothing I have seen provides the justification for changing a standard that has been with us since the dawn of civilization. Since you are the liberals who promote this change, the burden of proof falls on you. So tell me, why should we change the long standing institute of marriage? What's the argument?

If two people decide they want the permission, or sanctification of their bond by an organisation which claims to represent them (i.e. the church or state), that organisation must comply with their wishes, or at least acknowledge the fact that it does not represent them.
What you are saying is that you want people who feel sexually attracted to their own gender to be excommunicated.

I would be more intereted in hearing a reason why not to allow same sex couples to marry. "because it has always been that way", is not good enough.

why should we desecrate a tradition that has been reserved for a man and woman?

Why do you feel it is being desecrated?
Was the British empire not desecrated by the American revolution?
Things change, Norm.

[Charlie]

GW has got to be the worst homophobe I've ever seen. Not only does he oppose equality for homosexuals but he's also paranoid of some diluted McCarthyist fairy story about a secret "gay agenda".
I find no logic in your rabid stereotyping and incoherent propoganda. By posting that picture and malice against gays you seem to have deemed hetero people have higher morals than homosexuals. I think everyone here can agree that that is complete bollocks. By that logic I could post a picture of a female prostitute and say "Do these people deserve suffrage?".
Gay people are some of the coolest and most understanding people around, and your accusations of gays as being AIDS-ridden pedophiles with no intention but to desolate western civilization is totally digusting and insulting.

Like mentalbunny, I'm bisexual as well, and within a dedicated relationship I would have just as much a desire to marry a man as I would a women. I'm not speaking for the community, I am a part of the community, and you're just speaking against the community.

(Edited by Charlie at 3:47 pm on July 23, 2003)

[canikickit]

Is there any arguments against gay marraige other than "it breaks tradition"?

[Saint-Just]

'Is there any arguments against gay marraige other than "it breaks tradition"?'

If you argued that homosexuality was undesirable you would then argue that as a result there should not be the option for homosexuals to marry. So yes, there is another argument.

'So what if they're not? That is hardly evidence that they wish to undermine the traditions and customs of "normal" society. Why should they continue those traditions, are they not free to do whatever the hell they want?'

Marriage is a tradition, if marriage is not traditional it is not marriage. Marriage is a decision that affirms a relationship between two people. When entering marriage it is not considered acceptable that one should be unfaithful or indeed monogomous.

'Promiscuity isn't illegal, it may be immoral by your scewed definition, but you can't do anything about it.'

Again marriage is a decision between two people that they agree to take part in an exclusive relationship. Marriage is a cornerstone of our societal structure; by making it meaningless you greatly damage society's moral code and undermine the conventions that make society functional.

Promiscuity may not be illegal, but it is certainly not respected or considered morally acceptable.

Things do change, indeed, marriage has developed and so has the morality of society. We should not be afraid ot letting it evolve or sometime making an attack on the traditions of old. But, you cannot go so far as to destroy the very fabric of society that gives us a flexible system that can evolve and yet meanwhile maintain a healthy and functional society and morality our society.

(Edited by Chairman Mao at 4:42 pm on July 23, 2003)

[Ghost Writer]

My point exactly, Chairman Mao. Unfortunately these conservaphobes would rather call me a racist than listen to the points that I actually make. They are so convoluted that any time somebody differs from the gay agenda they assume that the person is somebody who hates gays. I do not hate gays. I just have a habit of viewing every aspect of life with a critical and skeptical mind. This is something you rabid liberals should try once in awhile.

Be careful Chairman Mao. Acoording to these nincompoops you have entered the realm of homophobia, and that warrants your being banned from the Che-lives community. Fucking morons.

[mentalbunny]

Chairman Mao, I think you may have misunderstood. Ok, promiscuity is immoral, unacceptable, however you want to phrase it, but is homosexual promiscuity any worse than heterosexual promiscuity?

The thing is, if you say that all gays are promiscuous and aren't capable of marriage that's really unfair on those that are, because there are loads of people out there who fall in love with someone of the same sex and build up a strong, loving relationship that will last for the rest of their lives. Come on, hetero married couples are hardly a picture of perfection, in the UK one in three marriages end in divorce. hetero couples have the right to get married and then legally divorce, what exactly makes them so superior and gays so inferior that they cannot be offered the same opportunities? It's just selfishness really. Marriage is more secure that co-habitation, it's a different atmosphere, it's positive, so I think it's cruel to deny that to someone else simply because they are having a relationship with a member of the "wrong" sex.

Chairman Mao, marriage as meaningless. In the UK one in three marriages end in divorce, is that not already meaningless? How is allowing gay marriages going to make it any more meaningless? I really don't understand. What, in your opinion, is the purpose of marriage as understood from both the personal and state perspective?

[mike the guy]

woah a whole lot happened here in just a day. i now have quite a lot to respond to

ghost writer: yes, you should be allowed to marry a 14 year old if it is consenting

tradition: whoever said that "tradionally women can't vote and balcks are slaves", i appluad you. so fuck tradition.

to whoever posted that pitcure of the 2 gay men in costumes and proceeded to stereotype all gays by it and said they're really not interested in serious marraige: fuck you, i don't like you. plus, not all heterosexuals are that interested in serious marraige either. have you ever seen that show "Married by America", or "Who Wants To Marry My Dad?" those people are heterosexual and they don't seem to be looking for serious marraige, but i support them fully if they want a frivilous marraige anyways, it's their right.

for anyone who's married out there who thinks that by marrying homosexuals you're sacred bond will be cheapened: if 2 people making a loving comittment to eachother cheapens you're loving commitment, you're commitment is obviously not based on love, becuase you are trying to prevent others from feeling such love.

furthermore; consenting paligamy should be legal too.

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

Quote: from Ghost Writer on 8:36 am on July 23, 2003
Let's have a look at our iconoclasts, shall we?

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/upload/gay_pride_paris.jpg

This is at the heart of your "gay rights" movement. Do you honestly mean to tell me that these men are truly interested in a serious marriage? Do you really think that they could go for one day without having sex with a different partner? One assumption that I notice many of you are making is that all gay people are interested in monogomous relationships. If that were true, why then are homosexual men the #1 transmitters of HIV. Why are 1 out of 10 gay men infected with this disease (1/3 infection rate for gay black men)? Why have we seen a an recent resurgence of syphilus and other venarial diseases in the gay community? The picture shows those types of people behind the gay agenda, and yes, they are radical in nature. To presume that these radicals actually care about the binding contractual obligations that come with marriage is absurd. The true goal is to reduce the effectiveness of their enemies customs and mores, thereby normalizing certain degenerate behaviors, like public sado masocism. Utimately, I believe the goal is the same for the radical leftists on this board, the destruction of civilization. The replacement of everything good with all that is against the natural progression of man. Gay marriage would not mark further evolution of man but a devolution of society as a whole.


50% of the hetero marriages in the US end in a divercion.

Does that mean that you should forbid US hetero marriages?

Plz dont be stupid.

(Edited by CCCP at 7:44 pm on July 23, 2003)

[mentalbunny]

Gorgeous CCCP, just gorgeous.

[redstar2000]

If you argued that homosexuality was undesirable you would then argue that as a result there should not be the option for homosexuals to marry.

That's a pretty big "if".

Marriage is a tradition, if marriage is not traditional it is not marriage.

Do you recall that line from The Internationale? "...no more tradition's chains shall bind us..."

Marriage is a cornerstone of our societal structure; by making it meaningless you greatly damage society's moral code and undermine the conventions that make society functional.

All societies? Or just class societies?

But, you cannot go so far as to destroy the very fabric of society that gives us a flexible system that can evolve and yet meanwhile maintain a healthy and functional society and morality [in?] our society.

I very much doubt that gay marriage would "destroy the very fabric of society"...but if it would, I'd really be for it. Destroying "the very fabric of (capitalist) society" is what communists are supposed to do.


I must add, by the way, that I find it difficult to understand why anyone would seek the approval of either church or state for their intimate relationships...both of those institutions having compiled an utterly reprehensible track record over all of recorded history.

It's on a par with asking Charles Manson or Jim Jones to conduct the ceremony.

:cool:

[Totalitarian]

Quote: from Charlie on 5:11 am on July 23, 2003
Marriage is a traditionally heterosexual ritual. Yes, traditionally, but traditions change.
Fuck that reactionary bullshit used to opress people through the veil of tradition.

But that's my point. If you see marriage as an oppressive tradition, why do you want to buy into it?


Homosexuals simply want what straight people have had for so long- the right to a legally recognized union. It's a sign of their acceptance into our society, a sign or no longer be cultural outcasts.
Why should they be denied of this right?

Personally the idea of a "legally-recognized union" doesn't hold much weight with me. I don't see why the State should be interfering in consenting adult relationships at all. As for gays acceptance into society, there will always be people who disapprove of homosexuality.

I don't really have a problem with gay marriage, however i am sceptical of the precedent this sets regarding religious institutions. It wouldn't surprise me if Churches that refused to marry gay couples could eventually be sued or punished by the State for "discrimination".

Totalitarian, from your avatar I am assuming you are indeed a communist.

No.

[mentalbunny]

Totalitarian, there are important factors, like life insurance, life-support machine decisions, etc etc, which married hetero couples and long standing cohabiting hetero couples get, but as far as I know homo couples don't. Why? Tradition. That's about it really, there are a few people who actually think homosexuality is wrong, but mainly it seems to be people like GW who for some inexplicable reason don't want to give homosexuals the same benfits, no idea why, it's not as though they've done anything wrong.

[Totalitarian]

I think it has something to do with marriage being a fertility ritual and gay couples aren't fertile.

[mentalbunny]

Correction: marriage was a fertility ritual, not anymore. people have kids outside marriage, people get married and decide never to have kids. Marriage as a situation in which to have children is a defunct idea.

[canikickit]

Looking back at the picture Norm supplied, I suddenly became convinced that all people who are attracted to their own gender are promiscuous. Thank you, Norm, for saving me from conservaphobia!

My previous post wasn't really on-topic, it was more of a criticism of Norm's condesending and prejudiced attitude towards gay people.


If you argued that homosexuality was undesirable you would then argue that as a result there should not be the option for homosexuals to marry. So yes, there is another argument.

That's not an argument, that's a hypothetical situation. Nevertheless, my question was an effort to inspire people to actually present some arguments other than complaining about breaking tradition.

Marriage is a tradition, if marriage is not traditional it is not marriage.

Is this a riddle?

Marriage is a decision that affirms a relationship between two people. When entering marriage it is not considered acceptable that one should be unfaithful or indeed monogomous.


You meant polygamous, I presume.
Nevertheless, people being promiscuous is not evidence that they wish to undermine the fantastic traditions of society. When entering marraige, it should be up to the individuals who the contract is between what is and is not acceptable.

If two people decide they want the permission, or sanctification of their bond by an organisation which claims to represent them (i.e. the church or state), that organisation must comply with their wishes, or at least acknowledge the fact that it does not represent them.


I do not hate gays. I just have a habit of viewing every aspect of life with a critical and skeptical mind. This is something you rabid liberals should try once in awhile.

I think this is amusing, because the viewpoints you have expounded in this thread are the type of paranoid crap I am used to hearing from close minded individuals incapable of thinking outside the box.
Sorry to break it to you like that.

[Totalitarian]

"Correction: marriage was a fertility ritual, not anymore. people have kids outside marriage, people get married and decide never to have kids. Marriage as a situation in which to have children is a defunct idea."


The difference is this: Most hetero couples have children and almost all have the natural capability to have children.

0% of gay couples can have children naturally.

[canikickit]

0% of gay couples can have children naturally.

Big deal.
0% of humans can have kidney transplants naturally. Do you think we should stop this horrific smashing of the traditional death of people due to kidney failure?

What about this damn-blasted unnatural internet communication?

[elijahcraig]

And do you also condemn oral sex and kissing? They are sexually pleasurably activities which do not cause reproduction.

[canikickit]

Infertile people should also be banned from marrying by that logic.


As for gays acceptance into society, there will always be people who disapprove of homosexuality.

That's a great attitude for you to have. You're a real revoutionary aren't you?


Personally the idea of a "legally-recognized union" doesn't hold much weight with me. I don't see why the State should be interfering in consenting adult relationships at all.

That self centred point of view will help change society. I commend you.

[mike the guy]

rabid liberal? haha i like that, it's funny. but honestly what is the oppsition here?!
"destroying the morality of society" (something like that)
bull. seriously now folks. 2 people making a loving commitment to eachother is gonna destroy morality? i'd hate to see what is upholding morality!! you can not strip people of basic rights because of their sexual orentation, it's discrimination.

i send out a question for all out there who appose:
is 2 peopel making a loving commitment to eachother hurting you??
well?

[Rastafari]

wasn't that leftistspider guy gay? It'd be interesting to hear what he has to say. Being Heterosexual, I believe that this is not my world to comment on, so so be it.

[Totalitarian]

Quote: from canikickit on 11:48 pm on July 23, 2003
Infertile people should also be banned from marrying by that logic.

Marriage is a heterosexual ritual, which is why infertile heteros can be married. Only a very small percentage of hetero couples are infertile, so this is not a significant issue.


As for gays acceptance into society, there will always be people who disapprove of homosexuality.

That's a great attitude for you to have. You're a real revoutionary aren't you?

Many people are repulsed by homosexuality (either their own, or others) at a biological level. Revolutionary movements are unable to alter the basic facts of nature which includes sexual instinct.

The biological purpose of an individual's life is to pass on his/her genetic pattern to the next generation(s). Homosexuality goes against this trend.

I'm not sure what the evolutionary purpose of being born gay is (if there is such a thing), it might have something to do with over-population.

Ordinarily i'd support gay marriages, however i know that this will probably be used as a bureacratic weapon against white hetero male (via. affirmative action for gays) as well as religious institutions eventually being forced to sanctify homosexual marriages or permit gays.

[elijahcraig]

That's no reason to be anti-gay marriage. If people are going to be homophobic ignorant bastards, some laws will be enforced. Ignorance is not an excuse for persecution.

[Totalitarian]

Quote: from elijahcraig on 3:37 am on July 24, 2003
That's no reason to be anti-gay marriage. If people are going to be homophobic ignorant bastards, some laws will be enforced. Ignorance is not an excuse for persecution.


Do you think it is "persecution" for a Church to refuse to marry homosexual couples as a matter of policy?

[elijahcraig]

You have to if you are a Marxist-Leninist.

[Totalitarian]

Quote: from elijahcraig on 3:54 am on July 24, 2003
You have to if you are a Marxist-Leninist.


What about freedom of association?

[redstar2000]

Many people are repulsed by homosexuality (either their own, or others) at a biological level. Revolutionary movements are unable to alter the basic facts of nature which includes sexual instinct.

Moronic drivel. At a "biological" level (whatever that is supposed to mean...subconscious, I guess), an animal body is concerned with things like breathing, heartbeat, hunger, thirst, fatigue, etc.

No serious revolutionary that I've ever heard of has ever suggested that people's sexual preferences (or instincts) can be altered by a conscious decision.

Get real.

:cool:

[Blackberry]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 6:00 am on July 24, 2003
Many people are repulsed by homosexuality (either their own, or others) at a biological level. Revolutionary movements are unable to alter the basic facts of nature which includes sexual instinct.

Moronic drivel. At a "biological" level (whatever that is supposed to mean...subconscious, I guess), an animal body is concerned with things like breathing, heartbeat, hunger, thirst, fatigue, etc.

No serious revolutionary that I've ever heard of has ever suggested that people's sexual preferences (or instincts) can be altered by a conscious decision.

Get real.

:cool:

Very true.

Oh, and 'intinct' is a word that scientists refuse to use.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from mentalbunny on 6:20 pm on July 23, 2003
Chairman Mao, I think you may have misunderstood. Ok, promiscuity is immoral, unacceptable, however you want to phrase it, but is homosexual promiscuity any worse than heterosexual promiscuity?

The thing is, if you say that all gays are promiscuous and aren't capable of marriage that's really unfair on those that are, because there are loads of people out there who fall in love with someone of the same sex and build up a strong, loving relationship that will last for the rest of their lives. Come on, hetero married couples are hardly a picture of perfection, in the UK one in three marriages end in divorce. hetero couples have the right to get married and then legally divorce, what exactly makes them so superior and gays so inferior that they cannot be offered the same opportunities? It's just selfishness really. Marriage is more secure that co-habitation, it's a different atmosphere, it's positive, so I think it's cruel to deny that to someone else simply because they are having a relationship with a member of the "wrong" sex.

Chairman Mao, marriage as meaningless. In the UK one in three marriages end in divorce, is that not already meaningless? How is allowing gay marriages going to make it any more meaningless? I really don't understand. What, in your opinion, is the purpose of marriage as understood from both the personal and state perspective?


I agree, homosexual promiscuity is just as unpleasant as heterosexual promiscuity.

I do not know whether homosexuals are more likely to be promiscuous. Maybe they are and it has to do with being outside of the norm has made them more sexually liberal.

I don't agree that marriage is meaningless at all; if it was people wouldn't get married. To a lot of people it is a bond that promises trust and loyalty in a relationship.

Marriage is there to say that people can enter stable, long-term relationships free from worrying about their partner being unfaithful. People who are married will say that they consider marriage binds them to someone and is a deterrent towards being unfaithful.

If homosexuals were more likely to be promiscuous it would take away the value of marriage. Of course, if they are just as likely as heterosexuals it doesn't matter. Currently I doubt as many homosexual couples will get married as heterosexual couples. And, the divorce rate for homosexuals may be lower as they are more committed when they make that decision. Having said that I doubt many take that decision uncommitted anyway. The fact is that humans are human and things don't go as smoothly as you want and so people will get divorced. Who knows if its a case of people being uncommitted when they take that decision.

The purpose of marriage personally is to solidify a relationship. To ensure its stability and to create security. It is a promise that people will be faithful to their partner and will take care of them psycologically and economically.

The purpose of it for the state; it gives people the opportunity to form stable, caring family units. It helps raise children and ensure individuals happiness and security. Although you could argue that a khabutz can work as well for example.



(Edited by Chairman Mao at 6:41 pm on July 24, 2003)

[Totalitarian]

Moronic drivel. At a "biological" level (whatever that is supposed to mean...subconscious, I guess), an animal body is concerned with things like breathing, heartbeat, hunger, thirst, fatigue, etc.

Redstar:

I agree that sexual preference cannot be altered by conscious decision. But it is still a fact that many people feel revulsed about homosexuality and i doubt this will ever change.

[elijahcraig]

I used to be repulsed by homosexuality, now I consider myself bisexual.

[Totalitarian]

If i was planning to start my own race/religion, i would not encourage homosexuality simply because it lowers the reproductive rate. Therefore i would see no need to marry gay couples.

Apart from that, i dont' really care.

[elijahcraig]

Well, unless you're starting a religion any time soon...

[Totalitarian]

You never know....

[mentalbunny]

CM, I did not mean to imply I thought marriage was meaningless, merely that if you think that gay marriages would make it meaningless you should look at the divorce rate, it's shocking.

Also, from your last post I don't understand why you are against gay marriages.

Totalitarian, there are actually loads of infertile couples, I don't have the figures on me right now, but there are loads of rely on artificial methods or find it very hard to conceive.

[capitalistpigdog]

Typical isnt it, the only person oppossing homosexual marriage on this forum provides the most dogmatic and illogical articulation of his beliefs.

Albeit, I would like it to be known that I have a personal moral objection to homosexual marriage. I do not 'persecute' homosexuals for their lifestyle choice just as I do not 'persecute' drug users for their lifestyle choice. I consider both behaviours to be unnatural and not required to be condoned by the Christian religion. Freedom of religion is a right, as is moral objection on the basis of that religion. The Christian church should not have to marry homosexual couples or accept homosexual clergy/ministers.

As for the legalisation of homosexual marriages I consider the church to be seperate from the state. Thus i dont believe that any government should be required to inforce laws based on religious beliefs.

That said, I do, however, believe that homosexual adoption should not be legal as I consider it to violate the rights of the child.

[Totalitarian]

From the vantage point of european folk, i think that we need less homosexuality, less corporate mothers and more BABIES.

[Felicia]

Quote: from capitalistpigdog on 9:55 am on July 25, 2003
Typical isnt it, the only person oppossing homosexual marriage on this forum provides the most dogmatic and illogical articulation of his beliefs.

Albeit, I would like it to be known that I have a personal moral objection to homosexual marriage. I do not 'persecute' homosexuals for their lifestyle choice just as I do not 'persecute' drug users for their lifestyle choice. I consider both behaviours to be unnatural and not required to be condoned by the Christian religion. Freedom of religion is a right, as is moral objection on the basis of that religion. The Christian church should not have to marry homosexual couples or accept homosexual clergy/ministers.

As for the legalisation of homosexual marriages I consider the church to be seperate from the state. Thus i dont believe that any government should be required to inforce laws based on religious beliefs.

That said, I do, however, believe that homosexual adoption should not be legal as I consider it to violate the rights of the child.

:angry:

if freedom of religion is a "right". Than it's their freedom to not have a religion, or to get married by law of they choose to do so. Gay marriage has nothing to do with christianity, it's two people wanting to be awknowledged as a couple by their country! Youi don't need to be married by religion, yoiu can be married by law. If you believe that the church is separate from the state, and you've said as much, than there's no reason for gays not to be married by law and government!

Homo sexual adoption should be legal for gays. That's like denying an Asian couple the right to adopt white baby. It's ludicris. Your ignorance is estounding.

[capitalistpigdog]

So my ignorance is 'estounding' is it. If you read my post you would realise that I was simply outlining my beliefs. I did not say that homosexuals should not be allowed to legaly marry. I said the church should not be required to legaly marry them. Did you even read my post?

And please do not compare homosexual adoption to inter-racial adoption. Your showing your own 'estouding' ignorance. And by the way, practice for your next spelling test, finish the third grade, and then consider calling me 'ignorant'.

[Felicia]

Quote: from capitalistpigdog on 10:19 am on July 25, 2003
So my ignorance is 'estounding' is it. If you read my post you would realise that I was simply outlining my beliefs. I did not say that homosexuals should not be allowed to legaly marry. I said the church should not be required to legaly marry them. Did you even read my post?

And please do not compare homosexual adoption to inter-racial adoption. Your showing your own 'estouding' ignorance. And by the way, practice for your next spelling test, finish the third grade, and then consider calling me 'ignorant'.
Yeah, go ahead, attack spelling, what a childish thing to do. So I separated "homo" and "sexual", and add extra 'i's by my finger slipping on that key. Spelling makes no difference, it's the words that should be payed attention too, not the presentation of an individual word.

" I did not say that homosexuals should not be allowed to legaly marry. I said the church should not be required to legaly marry them. Did you even read my post?"

some homosexuals are religous, if they want to be married my the church they should be able too. The government shouldn't have to "enforce" that because it's should just be so.

denying homosexual adoption sounds just as ridicules as denying inter-racial adoption. There's no reason why two people of the same gender cannot adopt a child, there's no reason for that denial at all.

[Totalitarian]

Felicia:
some homosexuals are religous, if they want to be married my the church they should be able too. The government shouldn't have to "enforce" that because it's should just be so.

So do you respect the freedom of religious groups to refuse to marry homosexual couples?

[Danton]

Felica,

As much as I agree concerning gay marrige - see my previous earlier in this thread - Whilst not condeming it outright I do have objections with regards to gay adoption...

Call me a caveman but I still beleive that the healthiest scenario for a child is to have male and female role models as parents, It's not comparable to interacial couples adopting - that undermines racial issues.

A child should have a positive masculine and feminine influence in their life - this is of course the ideal, I do not object to gay couples adopting - better them than an abusive hetrosexual couple - but it is not without faults and possible disadvantages for that child....



"VICTORIA O MUERTE"

[mentalbunny]

i would agree Danton, but there are some good gay men out there, like an uncle of someone at school. he's gay and rich, and wanted to adopt a kid so the kid could get a betrter start in life. apparently he's a great dad and the kid has way more opportunites. the guy is not overtly gay, he's not particularly camp or anything, just a normal guy who happens to be gay, nothing like GW's stereotypes. But I think kids, in general, work better with a mum and dad, but considering the number of single parents out there I have nothing against gay adoption as lng as the parents are suitable.

Felicia,I disagree about gay religious marriages,if a priest doesn't want to marry them then it's sad but ok, some people are like that and you have to respect their opinions on that one. However there will also be priests that will marry gay couples, they have to be able to choose, one Church policy on it isn't possible, it'll just split the church.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from mentalbunny on 1:18 pm on July 25, 2003
CM, I did not mean to imply I thought marriage was meaningless, merely that if you think that gay marriages would make it meaningless you should look at the divorce rate, it's shocking.

Also, from your last post I don't understand why you are against gay marriages.


I agree, the reasons as to divorce are very complex though. I was arguing against gay marriage for the sake of it. I don't really think about homosexuals at all, I know very little about homosexuals and homoxesuality so I can't be particularly judgemental about it and issues concerning it.

[dopediana]

Quote: from Danton on 3:08 pm on July 25, 2003
Felica,


Call me a caveman but I still beleive that the healthiest scenario for a child is to have male and female role models as parents, It's not comparable to interacial couples adopting - that undermines racial issues.

A child should have a positive masculine and feminine influence in their life - this is of course the ideal, I do not object to gay couples adopting - better them than an abusive hetrosexual couple - but it is not without faults and possible disadvantages for that child....


you do bring up some good points, because childhood has a large impact on the way a person grows up. i have some friends whose mother is a lesbian and is married to another woman. they're alright people, very very nice. these friends are very physically comfortable around most people, not in a sexual way, but they seem to be sort of blind to gender. they act the same way around everyone, no putting on airs, nothing like that. i'm not sure if you get what i mean, but they're totally undiscriminatory. their older brother is gay, but i'm not entirely sure that it's because of his parents. but who knows?

[mentalbunny]

Hmm, very interesting the amaryillis. And thanks for clarification CM.

[truthaddict11]

A child should have a positive masculine and feminine influence in their life - this is of course the ideal, I do not object to gay couples adopting - better them than an abusive hetrosexual couple - but it is not without faults and possible disadvantages for that child....

what kind of disadvantages? I am sick of people saying that the "atomic family" is the only funtional family. I havent seen my biological father in 14 years and I am damn fine and my mom is a lesbian. You can take your ideal family and shove it for all I care, The "masculine and feminine infulences" that you believe a child "needs" is bullshit. :angry:


(Edited by truthaddict11 at 5:46 pm on July 25, 2003)

[Felicia]

ok, about gay adoption, what's better? A child living his/her life in the system, or being raised by two loving parents, that's more than what most children get. Plus there are a lot of single parents out there who make it just fone without both the feminine AND the masculine influences.

There was a case in the US where a gay couple adopted a very sick, undesireable, crack baby, that was thought to have AIDS and all of these horrible diseases. The child responded to meds, and hadn't actually gotten AIDS from it's mother. Then the state wanted to take the child back because she wasn't undesirable anymore, and they wanted to find it a straight family. That is just wrong IMO. Those men cared for that child more than anyone even cared too, and then it was threatened to be taken away...... needless to say, I'm quite sure that the men got to keep the baby.

I say that if there is a couple who want to adopt a child and give it a loving home, they shoiuld be able to do so regardless of their sexual preference.

(Edited by felicia at 7:41 pm on July 25, 2003)

[Felicia]

Quote: from truthaddict11 on 6:45 pm on July 25, 2003

A child should have a positive masculine and feminine influence in their life - this is of course the ideal, I do not object to gay couples adopting - better them than an abusive hetrosexual couple - but it is not without faults and possible disadvantages for that child....

what kind of disadvantages? I am sick of people saying that the "atomic family" is the only funtional family. I havent seen my biological father in 14 years and I am damn fine and my mom is a lesbian. You can take your ideal family and shove it for all I care, The "masculine and feminine infulences" that you believe a child "needs" is bullshit. :angry:

I agree 100% :)

[mike the guy]

i think it was Totalitarian who said "we need less homsexuals and more BABIES." what?! the world is overpopulating itself to death.

anyways i'll quote something i read in the Globe and Mail today

"these activists should realize that if their parents had supported and practised homsexual marraige, they themselves wouldn't be around."

what a bloody ignorant man. well if they were married and had kids together they weren't homosexuals. but now you're saying any married heterosexual that supports gay marriage obviously can not have children.... idiot


"we are not discriminating, we are making sure tradition is upheld."

open your fucking eyes. you know what, let's be retro-active and re-uphold all those traditions we've broken.

as of now:
-women are the property of men and are to cook his meals, bear his children and do what they are told.
-only upperclass white males shall have the right to vote
-coloured persons are not people, they are to be the slaves of upperclass white men

hooray for tradition!!!!

[Totalitarian]

Quote: from mike the guy on 1:30 am on July 26, 2003
i think it was Totalitarian who said "we need less homsexuals and more BABIES." what?! the world is overpopulating itself to death.

No, i was just referring to europeans because they have a birthrate which is below replacement level.

[Felicia]

Quote: from Totalitarian on 10:24 pm on July 25, 2003

Quote: from mike the guy on 1:30 am on July 26, 2003
i think it was Totalitarian who said "we need less homsexuals and more BABIES." what?! the world is overpopulating itself to death.

No, i was just referring to europeans because they have a birthrate which is below replacement level.
I'm pretty sure that Canada does aswell..... we rely on immigrants for population growth :biggrin: ;)

I'm fine with it though..... Canadians like me are becoming extinct.... who wants some of my canuk eggs? They're rare to come by ;)

[capitalistpigdog]

Quote: from Totalitarian on 1:24 pm on July 26, 2003

Quote: from mike the guy on 1:30 am on July 26, 2003
i think it was Totalitarian who said "we need less homsexuals and more BABIES." what?! the world is overpopulating itself to death.

No, i was just referring to europeans because they have a birthrate which is below replacement level.


As does Australia. Although for some reason we maintain a harsh immigration policy that is an absolute abonation to human rights (im refering to the imprisonment of asylem seekers). I mean oh no, we dont want to have more than 18 million people in our freakishly oversised island.

[Danton]

Truthaddict11;

As unfortunate as it is we all still live in predjudiced societies, the dis-advantages I cite are ones you are probably well aware of - as you say your mother is a lesbian. Perhaps all your friends and neighbours are enlightened and your completely comfortable with it, if so, great! But I suspect that even if you are now, this hasn't always been the case?

It's a harsh indictment of society that some gay people have to hide their sexual identities either to safeguard their jobs or protect their children from playground bullies, condescending neighbours etc.. this is not a healthy way to live. I doubt any child can properly comprehend what being gay means, and through peer pressure and cultural pressures most children would most likely reject/ be ashamed of their gay parents and be forced to ask serious questions about their own identity that just aren't fair at that age.....As I say this is the harsh reality of the society we live in....

[mentalbunny]

Sorry to drag this up again but I've been away so I've only just read the last few posts and I have to say that I agree with Danton to an extent. it's true that society is too cruel to homosexuals for a child with two gay parents to grow up as though they had a mother and a father, but does that mean that we shouldn't have gay adoption? I don't think it is, it's possible to enlighten people, not easy necessarily but possible. And yes the child will almost undoubtedly find it tough, but life is tough and in general I think that in the end it won't be a problem. Everyone goes through shit in their lives, it's a fact of life, life is not nice and pretending that it should be is just foolish because there's no way to really avoid shit.