Gay marriage

Gummy Panda · 10-11-2008 04:17PM

nacho libre wrote: »

you could be on to something there.
God has a reason for everything. We mortals can't know his grand plan.

So he oblivous had a reason for making gay people so shouldn't we let them run their course which has come to them demanding the same rights as hetero people?

Nehaxak · 10-11-2008 04:30PM

Far as I'm aware, you don't develop a sexual preference at birth so I don't believe all that "born gay" thing. Neither may I add, do I believe in God.

If you take both of those equations out of the matter then, because both are irrelevant and rediculous. You'll find then that it comes down to basic humanity, should gay people, like any other human being, have the right to fall in love and marry another human being, regardless of that person being the same sex or not.

Degsy · 10-11-2008 04:36PM

Zillah wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

See how eye rolly I am!?

I see how wrong you are.
Homosexual dolphins...i loll'd.

KnifeWRENCH · 10-11-2008 04:39PM

hot2def wrote: »

on the real - screw gay marriage.

screw all the people jumping up and down about civil partnerships not being enough, winding up an intolerant majority by throwing around the word marriage.

"intolerant majority"? Eh, I think you'll find most people here very strongly in favour of gay marriage. Stop trying to tar everyone with the same homophobic brush.

Are we so insecure that we must ape straight people to feel validated?

Oh get over yourself. This is about gay people wanting equal rights, not trying to feel "validated". But hey if you're above marriage because that's only for nasty straight people then whoop-de-fcuking-doo for you.

even if you force through gay marriage in law, the vast vast majority of people will never seen two men/women as "married".

Bollox. Sure, there will be some who will not accept their new homosexually-wed overlords, but "vast vast majority" is just rabbling exaggeration.

let straight people have marriage has their own special event: they've completely screwed it up on their own anyway.

That comment is so bitter and pathetic it's laughable.

The_B_Man wrote:

Whats the point in having gay marriages in the first place?

Marriage is something that was invented back in the day, with the intention of a male and a female partaking in. The point of it was to start a family, ie sprout a few kids and all that. Gay marriages are unable to do this, so whats the point in having them? Even by modern standards i dont even think they qualify for the same tax breaks that normal marriages get.

The point is that if two gay people love each other, they should be allowed declare their love and get married like two straight people do. And if straight married couples are granted certain rights/tax breaks then gay married couples should receive the same.

Getting married does not mean kids will soon be arriving. I hate kids (I mean really, REALLY hate kids) and don't think I'll ever want to be a parent - so if I want to get married, is that "pointless" to you?

dlofnep · 10-11-2008 04:47PM

Of course it should be. It doesn't affect anyone else. I don't even see why anyone should have a say in it. If someone tried to dictate what girl I could marry, I'd be quick to tell them to shut their hole.

It's absolutely sickening that members of the gay community don't have equal rights in these days and ages.

hot2def · 10-11-2008 05:26PM

square_igloo wrote: »

"intolerant majority"? Eh, I think you'll find most people here very strongly in favour of gay marriage. Stop trying to tar everyone with the same homophobic brush.

you are, of course, entitled to you opinion, optimistic as it may be. Maybe my experiences have differed from yours.

Also, I stick by the fact that marriage is a crumbling institution.

javaboy · 10-11-2008 05:26PM

Gummy Panda wrote: »

So he oblivous had a reason for making gay people so shouldn't we let them run their course which has come to them demanding the same rights as hetero people?

But hang on. He also made all sorts of evil people. Should we let them run their course too?

mollzer · 10-11-2008 06:12PM

javaboy wrote: »

But hang on. He also made all sorts of evil people. Should we let them run their course too?

What does this mean? dont understand what you are saying.....

In America this week, in case no one noticed, a black man was elected president................... and as a friend pointed out, in his voters lifetime black and white people were not allowed to marry each other! oh how times have changed for the better.

So hope lives on that one day no human being will be discriminated against because of their race, creed or sexuality etc.

thelordofcheese · 10-11-2008 06:22PM

mollzer wrote: »

What does this mean? dont understand what you are saying.....

In America this week, in case no one noticed, a black man was elected president................... and as a friend pointed out, in his voters lifetime black and white people were not allowed to marry each other! oh how times have changed for the better.

So hope lives on that one day no human being will be discriminated against because of their race, creed or sexuality etc.

Ironically, the effort to mobilise large sections of the black community to vote for Obama may have been a deciding factor in the passing of prop 8 as statistically black people are more likely to be against gay marriage. (in the states at least)

javaboy · 10-11-2008 06:27PM

mollzer wrote: »

What does this mean? dont understand what you are saying.....

I was just pointing out the folly of using the existence of something as proof that God endorses it. i.e. the fact that gay people have come to the point that they want marriage does not necessarily mean that God endorses that position. Maybe He's up there fuming that we're tolerating homosexuality.

I think Gummy Panda was using that line of reasoning in a kind of tongue in cheek way to try and prove to someone who believes in God that homosexuals should be afforded all the rights and privileges that they seek. It's a flawed line of reasoning imo.

For the record before somebody misinterprets this post, I'm only disagreeing with Gummy Panda's line of reasoning, not necessarily with his belief that gay people should be allowed marry.

Gummy Panda · 10-11-2008 06:29PM

javaboy wrote: »

But hang on. He also made all sorts of evil people. Should we let them run their course too?

silly, they were made by the devil or a wizard

javaboy · 10-11-2008 06:29PM

Gummy Panda wrote: »

silly, they were made by the devil or a wizard

From mála.

Varkov · 10-11-2008 06:31PM

If being gay is so fantastic, would it be a good idea if the whole world was gay? Eh? Nope.

So being gay is not benaficial, constructive or advancing to us as a species. Why the **** should people want it around?

MagicMarker · 10-11-2008 06:32PM

Varkov wrote: »

If being gay is so fantastic, would it be a good idea if the whole world was gay? Eh? Nope.

So being gay is not benaficial, constructive or advancing to us as a species. Why the **** should people want it around?

To piss you off of course.

thelordofcheese · 10-11-2008 06:33PM

Varkov wrote: »

If being gay is so fantastic, would it be a good idea if the whole world was gay? Eh? Nope.

So being gay is not benaficial, constructive or advancing to us as a species. Why the **** should people want it around?

*shakes head*

After all these posts i have no words for this kind of drivel, especially drivel that has been bitchslapped about six times already.

In short, your point of view is bad and you should feel bad.

KnifeWRENCH · 10-11-2008 06:41PM

Varkov wrote: »

If being gay is so fantastic, would it be a good idea if the whole world was gay? Eh? Nope.

So being gay is not benaficial, constructive or advancing to us as a species. Why the **** should people want it around?

If everybody were gay, the world would be fabulous. As a wise man named Al once said: "Everything ith thuper when you're gay."

And think - no more of those annoying little fcukers called children.

You've convinced me Varkov - when I'm all growed up, I'm gonna be a gay. Toodles.

dlofnep · 10-11-2008 06:52PM

The 20% who voted no should hang their head in shame.

mollzer · 10-11-2008 07:01PM

For all the homophopic christians here, ye should hang yer heads in shame............Jesus in his life time stuck up for all peoples who were discriminated against.

Javaboy, I dont think God is 'fuming about homosexuality' at all, more like fuming at peoples interlorence of something that is about loving another person, not hurting anyone.

And I agree with thelordofcheese re what Varkov said, very immature thinking.

Marriage is supposed to be about a celebration of two people making a life long commitment to love each other and staying together. Just a pity every couple isnt afforded the choice to have the same financial security i.e. being legal next of kin (incase of illness etc), inheritence rights for each other and/or children of either person and/or children born within the relationship etc.

javaboy · 10-11-2008 07:02PM

dlofnep wrote: »

The 20% who voted no should hang their head in shame.

The poll options were too black and white in fairness. There's no room for sensible middle ground. To me there should be a distinction between civil partnership and marriage. Marriage should be a religious (or non-religious) non legally binding joining of two (or more) people (or animals). Civil partnership should give legal status to the people for the purposes of inheritance and so on. No special concession should be given on the basis that the couple might have kids until kids actually enter the picture.

So if the poll is should religions have to allow gay marriage then I say "no". If it's should the state allow gay marriage then I say "None of the state's business."

hopalong85 · 10-11-2008 07:02PM

yes i think gay people should be allowed to marry. i don't think they should be allowed to adopt though.

CreepingDeath · 10-11-2008 07:04PM

dlofnep wrote: »

The 20% who voted no should hang their head in shame.

Gays have a behavioural dysfunction... if anything we should put the taxpayers money into electroshock therapy for them. :-)

dlofnep · 10-11-2008 07:06PM

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Gays have a behavioural dysfunction... if anything we should put the taxpayers money into electroshock therapy for them.

Electroshock therapy for someone with a different sexual preference to you? You type of people make me sick. The only person with a behavioural dysfunction here is you. You're intolerant to difference.

hopalong85 · 10-11-2008 07:06PM

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Gays have a behavioural dysfunction... if anything we should put the taxpayers money into electroshock therapy for them.

aren't you supposed to get banned for trolling?

javaboy · 10-11-2008 07:07PM

mollzer wrote: »

Javaboy, I dont think God is 'fuming about homosexuality' at all, more like fuming at peoples interlorence of something that is about loving another person, not hurting anyone.

Em neither do I. I was just saying that if someone's going to argue that God allowing gay people to exist implies he is pro-gay rights, then the same reasoning could be applied to paedophiles, murderers, accountants. All I'm saying is that the argument "Y exists therefore God must be pro-Y" doesn't really fly.

javaboy · 10-11-2008 07:08PM

hopalong85 wrote: »

aren't you supposed to get banned for trolling?

Report the post or you can't complain. Karoma will beat you.

hot2def · 10-11-2008 07:09PM

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Gays have a behavioural dysfunction... if anything we should put the taxpayers money into electroshock therapy for them.

what benefit would there be to the tax payer?

CreepingDeath · 10-11-2008 07:09PM

hopalong85 wrote: »

aren't you supposed to get banned for trolling?

I probably should've put smilies in there... doesn't mean I was trolling the rest of the thread. Just thought the thread was winding down.

KnifeWRENCH · 10-11-2008 07:09PM

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Gays have a behavioural dysfunction... if anything we should put the taxpayers money into electroshock therapy for them.

I sincerely hope that was a (very poor) attempt at humour. Because if you're being serious....words fail me.

philologos · 10-11-2008 07:43PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

Oh jakkass, yoo hoo!!! I'm still waiting on an answer to that question.

What research, in detail please, do you think is necessary before allowing homosexuals to marry?

Now don't make me ask you a 5th time ya little skilly wag!

Hm, if you weren't so patronising I probably would have answered by now. The research I am thinking of would involve psychologists / sociologists analysing the potential problems that kids being raised in an LGBT family could have as opposed to children with both parents.

Gummy Panda · 10-11-2008 07:47PM

javaboy wrote: »

All I'm saying is that the argument "Y exists therefore God must be pro-Y" doesn't really fly.

no it defo doesn't.

It wasn't a serious arguement to a previous statement.

"God made man to be with woman, anything else is just wrong"

best post so far. you can't really argue with reason like that.

:pac:

Gay marriage

Comments