I basically said that marriage is a commodity owned by the churches and that same-sex marriages will never happen because the churches would need to deny what's in the bible to allow them which will cause a ***storm. The churches hold control and power of a lot of the western world and as such the government can't go up against their beliefs.
That said, to me marriages have lost their meaning, it should be about the union between two people through love and respect, not about gaining financial advantage which has always been the case (see historical marriages to benefit the families land holdings/assets).
I don't agree in same-sex marriages because a couple shouldn't put themselves under a belief system that denies what they are. De facto relationships are as far as it will go until marriages are taken away from the church.
That'll do, not as good as I would like it but that will do.
at least there would be SOME debate. seriously...almost everyone agreeing is boring and makes for dull debating.
Ok take this. Conceptually the idea of marriage is the idea of something long term and forming a family. Gay people cannot reproduce and until they can no tax write offs!!! Btw not sarcastic
But what about all those married couples that never had kids? Should loose their tax writeoff because they didn't have kids? Or those who were born/became sterile? Still can't have kids then...
Homosexual couples can still raise children, even if they can't have them together (but they can be part of the process with technology, with sperm donors, *forgottheterm* where a woman has a child for another couple, etc)
Hey at least there trying!!! Also I meant until 2 people of same sex can have babies that are from both there genes... yes were getting there and could technically probably do it but meh.
I like it mainly for the idea if there's someone you really care about and you die before you had gotten the chance to write out a will, that they would be in charge because you trust them enough to ect.
See this is kinda what I mean. Marraige is often more view as a means to make things easier. Weather it be wills or tax write offs or a way to milk someone for all there worth after the divorce. Think we should really take all the fuss out of the marraige and just make it a simple vowing to be together. Pretty sure there'd be less opposition against gay marriage then. Hell couldn't really stop it lol.
Well this is a valid point and against marriage in general instead of specifically gay marriage. What I don't get it those who want to allow one but not the other.
By that same token why not allow marrying younger or multiple though?
Younger, I have no problem with. Multiple is just a benefits type deal to me.
so, are you saying that two men can't raise a family or two women can't raise a family?
Has anyone conducted a scientific study on this? lol cause from my limited experience its split inn half just like a Hetero family...some good some bad.
On Yakuta's point of reproducing, fair point, but think of the fact that those gay people are not going to reproduce anyway, so its not like it makes our numbers go down, because they actually pay women(or buy sperm) to house their children, so its not as if they are hurting our numbers.
Edit**
I mean I completely whiffed there, that wasn't what he said, but I do agree on that is what marriage is for, so meh.
Edit2***
And I also agree on the point of being called a partnership as long as they are offered the same rights.
at least there would be SOME debate. seriously...almost everyone agreeing is boring and makes for dull debating.
Ok take this. Conceptually the idea of marriage is the idea of something long term and forming a family. Gay people cannot reproduce and until they can no tax write offs!!! Btw not sarcastic
But what about all those married couples that never had kids? Should loose their tax writeoff because they didn't have kids? Or those who were born/became sterile? Still can't have kids then...
Homosexual couples can still raise children, even if they can't have them together (but they can be part of the process with technology, with sperm donors, *forgottheterm* where a woman has a child for another couple, etc)
Hey at least there trying!!! Also I meant until 2 people of same sex can have babies that are from both there genes... yes were getting there and could technically probably do it but meh.
You mean like http://malepregnancy.com/ ? XD
I dont see the point though anyways, we're far from being extinct, and in some places have severe overpopulation. Then there are hundreds and thousands of children who are familyless, and forced to be raised up in an orphanage, etc. So I don't see why they shouldn't have the chance to be raised by a loving couple (even if they are gay.) -- I know a few ppl who have been raised by homosexual parents, so come from a sort of 'biased' background, but when it comes down to it... I'd rather see a child raised by 2 men, than stuck in a cold orphanage with hundreds of other children, and no real parental love
so, are you saying that two men can't raise a family or two women can't raise a family?
why can 2 gay people not be a family?
Raising a family can be done by anyone, don't even need a partner to do so, it can be done alone. I see no reason why being able to raise a child should be considered on par with the ability to create a being 'with your partner'.
Now should a couple have legal rights taken away b/c they cannot reproduce together? Imo no, but it's still not the same as in a non-legal sense.
When one parent leave the family through whatever reason, death, personal reasons etc that leaves a single parent. If a single parent can raise a child surely two single parents can?
two gay people can raise a family just as well as a man and a woman. hell...how many of YOU guys are all *** up and had a female and a male as parents? parenting skills have nothing to do with being gay or straight. most people can't parent period.
also <3 you guys for the delicious QQ much better thank you!
two gay people can raise a family just as well as a man and a woman. hell...how many of YOU guys are all *** up and had a female and a male as parents? parenting skills have nothing to do with being gay or straight. most people can't parent period.
I wouldn't know my mom was defective and my dad worked too much
When one parent leave the family through whatever reason, death, personal reasons etc that leaves a single parent. If a single parent can raise a child surely two single parents can?
"Now should a couple have legal rights taken away b/c they cannot reproduce together? Imo no, but it's still not the same as in a non-legal sense."
And besides its not like if someone says gays can't get married that they are suddenly going to start fking the opposite sex just to reproduce
Exactly ^
Littledarc said:
two gay people can raise a family just as well as a man and a woman. hell...how many of YOU guys are all *** up and had a female and a male as parents? parenting skills have nothing to do with being gay or straight. most people can't parent period.
I don't understand your point here. There are single parents that have raised children better than homo/hetero couples. Your sexuality has nothing to do with your ability to raise a child.
But they do have the same rights as us. I'm straight and still can't marry a guy.
I'm tired of hearing this. This doesn't make sense at all. If same-sex marriage is allowed, then YOU COULD. That doesn't mean you will. But you will have the SAME RIGHT to do so. It's not like your sexuality is in your driver's license.
Tousou said:
Or is it more of the State recognition thing?
Actually yes. I recall a case where a Guy's partner died and left everything to him in his will but the family went to court so he couldn't get anything. And since the state did not recognize them as Partners so to speak, he didn't get nothing.
Sidi said:
I don't really understand the huge opposition to it... I understand the bible thing, and how for Christians it isn't right, etc.
But Christianity isn't the only religion out there. Buddhists are allowed to get married, and they don't follow the bible, same for Atheists, Hindus, Judaism, Shintoism, etc. If all those religions are allowed to get married, in their own form of celebration, why aren't homosexuals?
We aren't a religion. There is gay church (not the Gym, the real church) and they praise the Lord as any other church. Again is more a for a legal consent, and protect each other legally.
Sidi said:
I know its basically because we're in a transition period where people are slowly becoming more and more able to accept homosexuals and all, but when it comes down to the legal terms of it, I don't see any reason where it has to be law that a marriage is JUST between a man and a woman. There is supposed to be a separation between church and state (in the US, as well as numerous other countries), and forcing that definition seems to be holding onto religion.
I suppose that in the past, for biological reasons, it makes sense where just a man and woman would be considered, because they could have children and continue the race... but these days, there are still sterile people that are allowed to get married, and there are ways around it (in vitro fertilization, adoption), and we aren't exactly on the brink of extinction either.
You just need to watch History repeating itself. Wasn't the african american community stigmatize not so long ago? Calling it Impure and all that crap? Took hundreds of years for it to stop, and I truly don't think it hasn't stopped. Same will happen with gay people. At some point in the future the next generation will see how stupid some people were. Also on your next point, I at some point though that nature itself is making more gay people to control ourselves. Its a fact that this world is overpopulated.
I would like to add too that things like THIS makes me angry. Why don't those who opposed follow this two? WHERE IS THE SO CALLED SANCTITY OF MARRIAGE HERE?. Also, I'm tired of hearing "Well if same-sex marriage is allowed then next people will marry animals". This is STUPID. Beware of other things that STRAIGHT people are doing like THIS:
ZOMG SLOW DOWN PEOPLE! By the time I posted from reading up to page 2 here we are on 5 already! Most of it derailing though, even talk about marijuana, lol!
Karusan said:
I lost my post, the moments over :(
I basically said that marriage is a commodity owned by the churches and that same-sex marriages will never happen because the churches would need to deny what's in the bible to allow them which will cause a ***storm. The churches hold control and power of a lot of the western world and as such the government can't go up against their beliefs.
That said, to me marriages have lost their meaning, it should be about the union between two people through love and respect, not about gaining financial advantage which has always been the case (see historical marriages to benefit the families land holdings/assets).
I don't agree in same-sex marriages because a couple shouldn't put themselves under a belief system that denies what they are. De facto relationships are as far as it will go until marriages are taken away from the church.
That'll do, not as good as I would like it but that will do.
Damn! Sounded like what I was going to do. Bash the idea of marriage itself, since it was created by churches.
But then I was going to throw in some stuff about how through theory of evolution, most species on the planet, including humans, aren't monogamous. Monogamy is something derived from way back in the day to help the churches keep tabs on people.
And now it's about government using the churches methods to continue their grip on people's lives for the money, blah, blah... I haven't finished it yet, lol!
When one parent leave the family through whatever reason, death, personal reasons etc that leaves a single parent. If a single parent can raise a child surely two single parents can?
"Now should a couple have legal rights taken away b/c they cannot reproduce together? Imo no, but it's still not the same as in a non-legal sense."
And besides its not like if someone says gays can't get married that they are suddenly going to start fking the opposite sex just to reproduce
Exactly ^
Littledarc said:
two gay people can raise a family just as well as a man and a woman. hell...how many of YOU guys are all *** up and had a female and a male as parents? parenting skills have nothing to do with being gay or straight. most people can't parent period.
I don't understand your point here. There are single parents that have raised children better than homo/hetero couples. Your sexuality has nothing to do with your ability to raise a child.
that is what i am saying. i was referring to an earlier post implying that a gay couple can't be a family.
They can be a family, because a family is a group that is related that shows love to one another and is there for each other, since when can gay people not do that?
yeah apparently they thought i was against gays being a family. -.-; i'm not i was trying to agrue for it but someone read wrong and got all butt hurt.
moar QQ plz kthx
edit: BOOBIES. sry got distracted...those are distracting even for a female. you should take the boobies down before conversation leans more towards lesbian sex or something.
The idea of this thread is to discuss and debate topics in a mature environment with evidence to support ideas. We are a group of people covering multiple countries and beliefs, with differing age groups and worldly experiences, this is an opportunity to share your ideas on topics that comprise the world today.
Things to remember: No attacks on other posters. If you have an opinion that is different to someone else, say so and provide evidence to support your opinion. No one is wrong in their opinions, it's an opinion. If you post however please expect people to make responses to what you say. This means keep an open mind. If you're not prepared to have someone think differently to you maybe it's best if you don't post. It's OK to have fun in this thread, just not at someone else's expense.
The last debate was a bit of a soft one to try and see how we would go with it. Most people had ideas on the subject and it was managed very well by all. This time it's going to be a bit more controvertial. While this is a debate, it's about explaining your way of thinking, not trying to manipulate others to think the way you do. I will repeat myself, do not ruin this thread for the rest of us.
Following the last successful debate on school uniforms comes this weeks topic from one of our posters: