Future of mankind at stake over gay marriage

[Beckys_Mom]

Marriage generally means loving one and other, being loyal to your partner..Putting up with each others for as long as you both can stick it..Some describe it like a sentence lol

I lived with my hubby for many years before I married him...The only difference was the piece of paper that confirms our relationship

Gays ( like so many straight couples ) have been loving each other and living together longer than I have been alive and still do.. Yet so many will claim our planet is suffering from over population..

I cannot see how those gays who are living together receiving a marriage licence will make any real difference.. The planet is still heavily populated and still growing.. Gays can and do adopt children...Only a raving idiot will think that if the kids are adopted by gays will make them gay too, especially when gays came from straight parents

Edited December 27, 2012 by Beckys_Mom

[Setton]

Just seen a great piece by Adam Hills (on 4od if you're interested):

"If we are all made in the image of god, and some people are gay, god must be a little bit gay. Not all out screaming gay but just a little bit. And how else do you explain flamingos?"

[regeneratia]

My first and only response to the headline is "bullpoop".

[The Id3al Experience]

Just seen a great piece by Adam Hills (on 4od if you're interested):

"If we are all made in the image of god, and some people are gay, god must be a little bit gay. Not all out screaming gay but just a little bit. And how else do you explain flamingos?"

Love that saying hahaha - Buuuuut Flamingos arnt actually pink.... if thats what its reffering too hAha - They only appear that way because they eat Shrimp.... So i get the real question is why is a Shrimp pink....? Pink was never a feminine colour said God, you humans always muddle whatIv made up. hahah

Edited January 18, 2013 by The Id3al Experience

[Setton]

Love that saying hahaha - Buuuuut Flamingos arnt actually pink.... if thats what its reffering too hAha - They only appear that way because they eat Shrimp.... So i get the real question is why is a Shrimp pink....? Pink was never a feminine colour said God, you humans always muddle whatIv made up. hahah

Believe me, I know all about flamingos. Just spent a week in Cyprus studying the effects of salinity on the shrimp they eat

[Paracelse]

Gosh this thread is still going and going?? You're worse than divorse lawyer on diet of Energiser bunny batteries.

[Frank Merton]

Gosh this thread is still going and going?? You're worse than divorse lawyer on diet of Energiser bunny batteries.

I think its because it is on Energizer batteries.

Now I have to put in my bit for tolerance. I live in a society where men are men and women are women, even if sometimes the women have male sexual characteristics and vice versa. In other words one's masculinity or femininity was defined by what you do in bed, not by what you are biologically.

Although this is grossly untrue, we now know, and that mostly gays just take turns being the "man," the society I am from did not see these gays, but only those who were overtly effeminate, and they were always accepted and even treated special. Homophobic attitudes seem to come with Western missionaries, and can be counted on the list of harms they do.

Many Buddhist temples readily bless gay couplings (in Vietnam only the government decides who is married and who is not, and this is not based on any ceremony). It seems likely that in a year or so it will officially recognize gay marriages, although it pretty much de facto does now. (Vietnamese do have elaborate marriage ceremonies, largely nowadays patterned after Western customs, but these have no legal effect except as evidence of a marriage if it is later questioned).

One convenient thing there is that formal dress ("au dai") are for both men and women, so unless the couple decides to take up Western wedding garments, they can be "groom and groom" or "bride and bride" as they choose.

[ali smack]

if people don't agree with gay marriage that's fine.

if people do agree with gay marriage that's fine.

personally I don't see the point in marriage in general so am not bothered about gays getting married

[glorybebe]

if people don't agree with gay marriage that's fine.

if people do agree with gay marriage that's fine.[bold]

personally I don't see the point in marriage in general so am not bothered about gays getting married[/bold]

Me, too. Nowadays with divorce being so easily attained, IMO the whole idea of marriage has lost its meaning. So, as long as two people love each other and are committed to each other, that is all that matters.

[Mr Right Wing]

if people don't agree with gay marriage that's fine.

if people do agree with gay marriage that's fine.

personally I don't see the point in marriage in general so am not bothered about gays getting married

Its Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve!

[Rlyeh]

Its Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve!

It's fiction!

[Frank Merton]

Me, too. Nowadays with divorce being so easily attained, IMO the whole idea of marriage has lost its meaning. So, as long as two people love each other and are committed to each other, that is all that matters.

I think the fact that divorce is easy makes marriage more valuable. Couples are not forced to stay together but do so because they want to.

For a long time I wondered why gays insist on the right to be legally "married" when alternatives that have the same legal effect exist. I've decided that it's a case of "separate but equal" ends up separate and unequal.

[Professor Buzzkill]

I think the fact that divorce is easy makes marriage more valuable. Couples are not forced to stay together but do so because they want to.

For a long time I wondered why gays insist on the right to be legally "married" when alternatives that have the same legal effect exist. I've decided that it's a case of "separate but equal" ends up separate and unequal.

What is unequal about a marriage thats not called a marriage? The law is the same, the name is not. You can stick feathers on a poodle but it doesnt make it a duck.

A good arguement i have heard against gay marriage is that it is a contract. Many people got married (entered into a contract) with the idea that the definition of marriage would remain the same forever. Legally changing the definition of marriage DOES effect everyone who is married.

It also affects freedom of religion as marriage celebrants who do not want to marry same sex couples can be prosecuted for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

[Frank Merton]

What is unequal about a marriage thats not called a marriage? The law is the same, the name is not. You can stick feathers on a poodle but it doesnt make it a duck.

Maybe its my weaker command of English, but you seem to contradict yourself. My point was only that what is equal today may not be tomorrow. Black and white schools started out equal but ended up very unequal. Although some arrangement may be given legal equality today, this may be taken away tomorrow.

A good arguement i have heard against gay marriage is that it is a contract. Many people got married (entered into a contract) with the idea that the definition of marriage would remain the same forever. Legally changing the definition of marriage DOES effect everyone who is married.

Now that makes no sense at all. As such you would say no law affecting marriage can have retroactive effect on those already married, so that, for example, those who got married in the 1940s would have to follow the divorce law in effect then.

It also affects freedom of religion as marriage celebrants who do not want to marry same sex couples can be prosecuted for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

What? No one is forced to marry anyone they don't want to marry. Roman Catholic priests refuse to marry a divorced woman and there is no compulsion. I have to wonder where you are getting these ideas.

[+Liquid Gardens]

A good arguement i have heard against gay marriage is that it is a contract. Many people got married (entered into a contract) with the idea that the definition of marriage would remain the same forever. Legally changing the definition of marriage DOES effect everyone who is married.

I don't think that argument is that great without some explanation as to why 'legally changing the definition of marriage' to include gays affects in any way the 'contract' that heterosexuals have entered into. Keep in mind also that in the US that the 'legal definition of marriage' has already been altered in the past to allow for interracial couples (and it wasn't as long ago as it should have been), so the same argument applies to that change also as far as it's supposed effect on already-married couples at the time. And the supposed effect on those marriages is none at all in my opinion.

It also affects freedom of religion as marriage celebrants who do not want to marry same sex couples can be prosecuted for discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

In the US, that is not true. I assume by 'marriage celebrants' you mean churches and priests, and no priest or church is under any obligation legally to perform a marriage ceremony (which is all that it is; it's not legal until you file the marriage certificate) for anyone at all. If a church does not want to marry gay couples or interracial couples or people with bad breath, there is nothing the law can do about it.

[Professor Buzzkill]

Maybe its my weaker command of English, but you seem to contradict yourself. My point was only that what is equal today may not be tomorrow. Black and white schools started out equal but ended up very unequal. Although some arrangement may be given legal equality today, this may be taken away tomorrow.

I dont see what race has to do with it. My point being that men and women are different. Trying to equate a man and woman to two men or two woman is crazy. Nature has already made them unequal. No amount of semantics will change that.

Now that makes no sense at all. As such you would say no law affecting marriage can have retroactive effect on those already married, so that, for example, those who got married in the 1940s would have to follow the divorce law in effect then.

"I am married" no longer means what it did last year. Does that effect anyone who uses the term "I am married"?

What? No one is forced to marry anyone they don't want to marry. Roman Catholic priests refuse to marry a divorced woman and there is no compulsion. I have to wonder where you are getting these ideas.

So you can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?? I must tell the human rights commission!

[+Liquid Gardens]

"I am married" no longer means what it did last year. Does that effect anyone who uses the term "I am married"?

Please provide the before gay marriage translation of 'I am married' then, followed by what it supposedly means today. Because I don't think the meaning of that statement has changed at all.

So you can discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation?? I must tell the human rights commission!

Nice Catch-22 you've set up: if churches can refuse to marry gays, it's discrimination based on sexual orientation; if we force churches to marry gays, it's violating their freedom of religion. Sounds like you'll be on the phone with the HRC either way....

[Doug1029]

The Pope might wish to consider the case of David and Jonathan and note that their relationship didn't bring about the end of civilization. Nor did the one between Ruth and Naomi, nor the one between the Centurion and the slave boy.

De facto homosexual marriages have been with us since forever and have not been all that damaging. Why? In the case of gay men, their female relatives are more fecund than average and thus compensate for the reduced number of offspring, allowing the gays to concentrate on needed services such as defense, hunting and the like.

Doug

[+Paranoid Android]

The Pope might wish to consider the case of David and Jonathan and note that their relationship didn't bring about the end of civilization. Nor did the one between Ruth and Naomi, nor the one between the Centurion and the slave boy.

One problem with that theory - none of them were homosexual relationships, though it is popular for people to claim that they were.

De facto homosexual marriages have been with us since forever and have not been all that damaging. Why?

Homosexuality has been around forever, and the human race is still here. 'Nuff said.

[sslama]

Do we even have to know who's gay and who's straight? Can't we just love everybody and judge them by the car they drive?

[glorybebe]

Do we even have to know who's gay and who's straight? Can't we just love everybody and judge them by the car they drive?

LAMO! That is awesome!

[CRYSiiSx2]

I have the same opinion about this as I do about many things. LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE. You don't like the same sex? Don't marry them. Don't like what the internet has done socially? Go outside. You don't like the 2nd amendment? Don't own a gun. Everyone in the world just gets nosier and nosier, mind your business people!

[SpiritWriter]

I love how gay issues always get a lot of posts...

[SpiritWriter]

Its Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve!

Gotta love this quote! Or maybe it's the quote you love to hate...

[SpiritWriter]

Pope

Edited January 24, 2013 by SpiritWriter