LawrenceOfArabia
Member!
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2004
- Messages
- 187
- Reaction score
- 0
dont get me wrong, im a guy and i like girl on girl action in my pornos...but in the long run, whats the human instinct? HAVE SEX AND REPRODUCE!!!!!
For or against gay marriage.
- Thread starter AxL
- Start date
Forged
Premium Member
Obviouslly not to everyone...
ST
Premium Member
Alright I couldn't go to sleep until the gays get justice 
Well everyone likes to see the oposite sex make out with the same sex(not sure if girls like gay guys making out or whatever though and i doubt they do all though who knows).It doesn't matter...omg this is insane I cant even look at it from another point of view to argue?I mean everything has been covered what's left?Both sides have been argued marvelously yet I can't help thinking that what is the big deal?I MEAN OMFG IT'S JUST SOME PEOPLE THAT LIKE THE SAME SEX?WHY DO YOU NOT LIKE IT?THEY DO NOT DO ANYTHING TO YOU!!
I MEAN MY GOD I DONT KNOW WHAT TO SAY HELP ME OUT AMRTIN77THEY DO NOT DO ANYTHING TO YOU!!
Isn't there A bigger size?I mean the biggest size you could select was 4 and i just put in 200 to see if it would do it and 2000 doesnt work but i think 200 is the max or something!!
Well everyone likes to see the oposite sex make out with the same sex(not sure if girls like gay guys making out or whatever though and i doubt they do all though who knows).It doesn't matter...omg this is insane I cant even look at it from another point of view to argue?I mean everything has been covered what's left?Both sides have been argued marvelously yet I can't help thinking that what is the big deal?I MEAN OMFG IT'S JUST SOME PEOPLE THAT LIKE THE SAME SEX?WHY DO YOU NOT LIKE IT?THEY DO NOT DO ANYTHING TO YOU!!I MEAN MY GOD I DONT KNOW WHAT TO SAY HELP ME OUT AMRTIN77THEY DO NOT DO ANYTHING TO YOU!!
Isn't there A bigger size?I mean the biggest size you could select was 4 and i just put in 200 to see if it would do it and 2000 doesnt work but i think 200 is the max or something!!
ST
Premium Member
Damn strait...night boring people that I don't understand why they think gay marriage is wrong.
Nuts
Member!
Are we content to base every law on whom is hurt? Is this the basis for the law of the land? Perhaps we need to review the defining aspects of law.
True, law does prevent injury to others, but in addition it also recognizes the rights of others. Marriage is a right given to those of opposite sexes. There are no existing laws that recognize same sex marriage, period. If homosexuals wish to marry, then they have the burden of proof. They must appeal to the legislatures to have the existing laws changed, or created. There shall be no manipulation of law without due process, therefore, same sex marriage requires amending state constitutions. The high courts may strike certain laws as unconstitutional, yet this does not give carte blanche to the court to interpret the law as they see fit. The law must be sent to the legislature for refinement.
Regardless of your personal feelings for the issue, same sex marriage has a difficult chance of passing any vote in the near future. The polls indicate a very strong opposition to using the term "marriage" to define same sex unions. Polls do indicate a willingness to allow same sex unions under their own umbrella.
And for those that ask why, I ask you.... why do gays insist on being married in lieu of enjoining in a civil union? Do they not recognize the differences in their ways? Do they not realize that they differ from the majority? In life, all people fall into categories, black, white, male, female, young, old. Our society uses these categories to define law in many cases. Only senior citizens may collect social security, only those above 16 may drive, and only minorities may be considered for affirmative action employment. Homosexual unions are simply another category, and to ask that they be defined by the same standards as heterosexual marriage is simply incorrect.
Imagine going to McDonalds and asking for a Big Mac without special sauce, lettuce or cheese. Guess what, you would recieve a Quarter Pounder, not a Big Mac. Now imagine complaining to McDonalds because they gave you what you wanted, but with a different name. Sounds pretty silly doesn't it?
True, law does prevent injury to others, but in addition it also recognizes the rights of others. Marriage is a right given to those of opposite sexes. There are no existing laws that recognize same sex marriage, period. If homosexuals wish to marry, then they have the burden of proof. They must appeal to the legislatures to have the existing laws changed, or created. There shall be no manipulation of law without due process, therefore, same sex marriage requires amending state constitutions. The high courts may strike certain laws as unconstitutional, yet this does not give carte blanche to the court to interpret the law as they see fit. The law must be sent to the legislature for refinement.
Regardless of your personal feelings for the issue, same sex marriage has a difficult chance of passing any vote in the near future. The polls indicate a very strong opposition to using the term "marriage" to define same sex unions. Polls do indicate a willingness to allow same sex unions under their own umbrella.
And for those that ask why, I ask you.... why do gays insist on being married in lieu of enjoining in a civil union? Do they not recognize the differences in their ways? Do they not realize that they differ from the majority? In life, all people fall into categories, black, white, male, female, young, old. Our society uses these categories to define law in many cases. Only senior citizens may collect social security, only those above 16 may drive, and only minorities may be considered for affirmative action employment. Homosexual unions are simply another category, and to ask that they be defined by the same standards as heterosexual marriage is simply incorrect.
Imagine going to McDonalds and asking for a Big Mac without special sauce, lettuce or cheese. Guess what, you would recieve a Quarter Pounder, not a Big Mac. Now imagine complaining to McDonalds because they gave you what you wanted, but with a different name. Sounds pretty silly doesn't it?
ST
Premium Member
"And for those that ask why, I ask you.... why do gays insist on being married in lieu of enjoining in a civil union?"
They wish to intensify their relationship and have a legal(Or if they are married by a rogue church which will bring me to my next paragraph.)document to state that infact they are a couple and they have the deepest love for eachother.
And they can get married at rogue churches and such.You think that gays arent getting married right now?I can pretty much guarantee that some gay couple is getting married while I type this.
And who says that your opinion alone or someone elses opinion is enough to supress them from getting married.Denying them marriage is denying them their civil rights.Denying them their civil rights is illegal.
Now that it's the morning again I can think strait.
Oh and your analogy is really confusing btw.
They wish to intensify their relationship and have a legal(Or if they are married by a rogue church which will bring me to my next paragraph.)document to state that infact they are a couple and they have the deepest love for eachother.
And they can get married at rogue churches and such.You think that gays arent getting married right now?I can pretty much guarantee that some gay couple is getting married while I type this.
And who says that your opinion alone or someone elses opinion is enough to supress them from getting married.Denying them marriage is denying them their civil rights.Denying them their civil rights is illegal.
Now that it's the morning again I can think strait.
Oh and your analogy is really confusing btw.
amrtin77
BattleForums Senior Member
you got me it does sound silly. im fine with civil unions as long as they give the same crap as marraiges, and look the same in the eyes of the law. when starting this debate i had no idea civil unions existed honestly, i thought people just refused to let gay people marry.
this is to nuts.
it does sound silly. im fine with civil unions as long as they give the same crap as marraiges, and look the same in the eyes of the law. when starting this debate i had no idea civil unions existed honestly, i thought people just refused to let gay people marry.this is to nuts.
ST
Premium Member
Like I said in my earlier post civil unions can not entirely restrict gay marriage.The only power that can ultimately ultimately restrict gay marriage(in the usa) is the supreme court(of usa).Other wise it is against civil rights and even if the supreme court did do that it's against civil rights and they would get an earful from people like me and amrtin77
Nuts
Member!
One clarification amrtin, civil unions don't yet exist, but that's the idea that has been agreed upon by the voters according to the polls. There is currently no legal method of joining same sex partners. Civil Unions would pass most votes, same sex marriages wouldn't.
And ST-ST-ST, I can't debate you any longer as you are rehashing the same questions and erroneous facts that have been answered in several prior posts, including my last. You opinion is exatly that, yours. If and when you wish to look at this logically, we can debate the semantics of it all. For the last time, there is no civil right for same sex marriage, it doesn't exist.
And ST-ST-ST, I can't debate you any longer as you are rehashing the same questions and erroneous facts that have been answered in several prior posts, including my last. You opinion is exatly that, yours. If and when you wish to look at this logically, we can debate the semantics of it all. For the last time, there is no civil right for same sex marriage, it doesn't exist.
ORC-r0x0r-ROC
Like my cute wabbit?
Ok nuts. All laws have a reason for existing. If noone can give a good reason for the law that only lets opposite sex marry then this debate is pointless. And no answers like: "it's just not right"
His opinion is his, so everyone is supposed to post thiers here. If you'd look up it says:
"Yes I think homosexuals should be able to marry."
and
"No I think homosexuals should not be able to marry."
His opinion is his, so everyone is supposed to post thiers here. If you'd look up it says:
"Yes I think homosexuals should be able to marry."
and
"No I think homosexuals should not be able to marry."
Nuts
Member!
A good reason to disallow gay marriage, hrmmm let me think.....
Because it isn't marriage!
How many times do we need go over this very simple fact? It's not marriage by any definition of the word, no matter how you try to skew it. For the last time, marriage is a union between a man and a woman, therefore a union between a man and a man cannot logically be marriage! It's not an opinion, it's not a theory, it's not conjecture, it's pure unadulterated factual information!
Do you understand the words that are displayed before you?
Because it isn't marriage!
How many times do we need go over this very simple fact? It's not marriage by any definition of the word, no matter how you try to skew it. For the last time, marriage is a union between a man and a woman, therefore a union between a man and a man cannot logically be marriage! It's not an opinion, it's not a theory, it's not conjecture, it's pure unadulterated factual information!
Do you understand the words that are displayed before you?
amrtin77
BattleForums Senior Member
until civil unions or something of the sort comes out, im for same sex marraige. when they come up with a civil union that does the same stuff then ill say gays cant arry by definition, but can be united through civil union which is the same as marraige, except anyone can get it. id be fine with that. but there has to be SOME WAY for them to get the benifits as maried couples.
Nuts
Member!
Why not support the initiative to legalize civil unions if they're equal? I see no reason to ask for one option when the other is perfectly suitable and obtainable.
amrtin77
BattleForums Senior Member
agreed. but until legal unions are a reality i will support homosexual marraige.
LawrenceOfArabia
Member!
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2004
- Messages
- 187
- Reaction score
- 0
hey, maybe people shouldnt even get marriage unless they are jewish or christian. since so many people say seperation of church and state, then why do people in america get married? marriage was biblical as well as divorce/remarry
amrtin77
BattleForums Senior Member
marraige is legally used to get tax cuts and such. you cant get legal benifits for being in a religion. you can get married by a court or something, you dont have to be religious.
ST
Premium Member
I'm not even gonna argue anymor...I find nuts annoying.And sorry for flaming but I do.Actually their debating it in the state of california right now so when I'm gone I can feel some secureness for the gays because they will have it settled in the end under law.I'm gonna say it one last time and than I'm gone from this thread:
"I think gays should be aloud to marry"
-ST
"I think gays should be aloud to marry"
-ST
Nuts
Member!
Marriage was never meant to be a tax break, that was a side effect from years of legal wrangling and beauacracy. Truth be known, married people should get no benefits above and beyond a single person in my opinion.
I love you too.
ORC-r0x0r-ROC
Like my cute wabbit?
So the reason that gays can't marry is because of a defintion, thats a pretty dumn reason. Marriage is more a part of society than religion. If legal union is so equal to marriage then why can't gays get married .
.
Miss
Member!
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,978
- Reaction score
- 0
It is from humans the way we live and from what you think is our choice.
If the first couple was a man with a man and then we continued today we'd be having men with men and women with women. Because of what we seen and decided that; that is the 'right' thing. People wouldn't be disgusted either, as of everyone does it.
As well we really don't know how it was meant to be. Just because reproduction happens within a female with a male. Doesn't mean that; thats the way its SUPPOSE to go.
I'm not taking sides but want you to read this and think about it.
If the first couple was a man with a man and then we continued today we'd be having men with men and women with women. Because of what we seen and decided that; that is the 'right' thing. People wouldn't be disgusted either, as of everyone does it.
As well we really don't know how it was meant to be. Just because reproduction happens within a female with a male. Doesn't mean that; thats the way its SUPPOSE to go.
I'm not taking sides but want you to read this and think about it.
