Thought on homosexuality and same sex marriage

[Laharl]

I'm back. Miss me? I sure did.

Down to business. Paul Martin of Canada (Yes, the Prime Minister) himself said that although he personally opposes Same-sex marriage that he would have the law universally allowing it anyways. Why? Because he believes that you can't enforce certain 'rights' and not others. It's just that simple.

'Seperate is not equal'. That was the message of a court ruling about wheither or not it was legal to force blacks to attend seperate schools in America. By the sheer nature of a seperate institution is it NOT EQUAL. It's a pipedream to think that any organization would POSSIBLY give same-sex partners equal rights.

It's not about the name, it's about the rights, and the dignity.

By having a seperate institution you would be sending the message to same-sex couples that they are lesser citizens and unworth to enter the instutution of Marriage.

I can't speak for America, but in Canada that violates the bill of rights.

Me even participating here is a bit of a mott (spelling?) point. Same-sex marriage (in Canada) is here to stay. Either by court or parliamentary vote.

 

[₪Zeratul₪]

Same-sex marriage (in Canada) is here to stay. Either by court or parliamentary vote.

Then you will not see me moving to Canada anytime soon.

If the Courts have to make homosexuals "normal", then there is something wrong.

 

[Magikarp]

How the hell did I miss this?

Homosexual marriage is gay. Pun intended.

If you want a good debate on homosexual marriage, check out this thread:

http://www.battleforums.com/showthread.php?t=64281&highlight=Marriage

Yeah, my opinions are a lot different now.. partially because of this forum. As for gay marriage, I could really care less; people can do what they want to do. As for giving out certificates of marriage.. I'll leave that up to other people to decide.

 

[Tipsy]

'Seperate is not equal'. That was the message of a court ruling about wheither or not it was legal to force blacks to attend seperate schools in America. By the sheer nature of a seperate institution is it NOT EQUAL. It's a pipedream to think that any organization would POSSIBLY give same-sex partners equal rights.

The key to this is 'seperate is not equal' was used for stopping the seperation african-americans in public things. But if this carries over the gender, who says it can't carry over to age? Maybe it should be unconstitutional for people under eighteen not to be allowed to vote. Just because the phrase sounds like it fits, it doesn't. They are completely difference circumstances dealing with completely different things. You can bend that phrase to extremes and it will sound like it fits.

By having a seperate institution you would be sending the message to same-sex couples that they are lesser citizens and unworth to enter the instutution of Marriage.

So does that mean if I am too young to recieve retirement benefits that I am any lesser of a citizen? Does that mean people that are under 21 and cannot legally drink are any lesser of a citizen?

I can't speak for America, but in Canada that violates the bill of rights.

Your exactly right! Absolutely nowhere in the enitre Bill of Rights for the United States does it say anything about being created equally, that is the Declaration of Independance.

 

[Snagg]

The day US invades us is when we legalize gay marraige and pot.

 

[Lights]

My entire thinking is basically this:

I have no problems with same-sex marriages, and I do not believe they should be constitutionally banned. I believe such a ban or "renaming" goes against what this country is founded upon. Nonchristian religions aren't forced to be called something other than a "religion" (example only).

Calling same-sex marriages "unions" or some such is only asking for trouble. You would think people would have learned that by now, with all our previous attempts of 'seperate but equal.'

So to keep things simple, allow consenting, same gender adults to be "married". Doing such hurts noone and saves many much turmoil. This should not be the huge deal that it is. Conservatives need to stop crying and whining.

IMO

 

[Emperor Pan I]

So does that mean if I am too young to recieve retirement benefits that I am any lesser of a citizen? Does that mean people that are under 21 and cannot legally drink are any lesser of a citizen?

except u will be given those benefits.

Gays are gay, they did not chose it and they are stuck with it, unlike age it isnt going to change.

I hate religion because on one side it talks about tolerance, and then it persecutes a certain group of people.

 

[johnpark1223]

God made Adam and Eve.. not Adam and Andrew or Eve and Elizabeth

 

[Emperor Pan I]

God made Adam and Eve.. not Adam and Andrew or Eve and Elizabeth

God didn't make Adam, and God didn't make eve. IT is all a freaking fairy tale, in a book full of liesand deceit based on a God created by man to control the masses.

God is nothing more than a way for the church to have control.

 

[neophase]

My View

I believe this...

Marriage ought to stay the same, unchanged, man and woman, no homos.

Civil Unions I partially agree with but still bad.... I'd like em to be quarantined.... or to hide the fact they are together, and never to show intimacy in public, Never, especially in front of kids.

Where I come from?

1. The christian bible, man and woman ought to stay the same. For Mortal to change something holy is an abomination to mon Dieu.

2. Some homos are striving for control over my religion (Those in support of changing the bible definition of marriage).... to change something in the holy bible is totally unconstitutional.

3. I believe that if they want to be together and nothing can break them apart, they ought to be quarantined.... but not in jail but in a place where they can strive and prosper... but have no access to harsh weaponry of any sort.... to live in harmony sure would be alright.... like fields and lands to ponder around, but not too much. The beauty of underground and the air. (Outpost and Fifth Element/Minority Report ).

4. In this way, you can still respect their free choice (freedom), but at the same time, shield the general population from being influenced too much into thinking that this is normal and perfectly acceptable behaviour. Remember that with the new generation of people in this world, children are easily influenced by such diseases like peer pressure and to be apart of the norm. It's an ugly feeling to be alone, but it's something to harvest from.

I'm going too offtopic, but yeah, that's how I feel.
If anyone wants to discuss this in PM, I'd be glad to share my thoughts on this.

Peace,
Rico

 

[t.A.T.u97]

4. In this way, you can still respect their free choice (freedom), but at the same time, shield the general population from being influenced too much into thinking that this is normal and perfectly acceptable behaviour. Remember that with the new generation of people in this world, children are easily influenced by such diseases like peer pressure and to be apart of the norm. It's an ugly feeling to be alone, but it's something to harvest from.

Uh it is normal, no one, nooo one can tell you "You can't fall in love with this person, Fall in love with that person." It just happens. If you love someone so deeply and want to get married then sure, if you can go through a divorce you can let 2 people of the same sex marry.

Edit: And those people form tatu.us still remember and still dislike you, haha nice impression left on em. But cmon, 80% of the people at tatu.us are gay or lesbian

 

[RuneyPoo]

Uh it is normal, no one, nooo one can tell you "You can't fall in love with this person, Fall in love with that person." It just happens. If you love someone so deeply and want to get married then sure, if you can go through a divorce you can let 2 people of the same sex marry.

Edit: And those people form tatu.us still remember and still dislike you, haha nice impression left on em. But cmon, 80% of the people at tatu.us are gay or lesbian

Gay Marriage = Should be legalized. That's all I have to say.

-Magically turns into a female-

Let's go be lesbians on the webbie!!!

 

[Tipsy]

except u will be given those benefits.

Gays are gay, they did not chose it and they are stuck with it, unlike age it isnt going to change.

What I was going after is if separate but not equal is applied to homosexual marriage rights like it does to skin color rights it can be applied to any conditional right. It will have to be applied so that no matter if you are different in any way, gender, age, skin color, etc, you have to have the same rights as everyone else. So you would have your rights infringed on for the first 18, 21, or however many years of your life until you qualify for a law. And, believe it or not, in at least a few states (not sure of the exact number), you can change what gender is shown on your birth certificate, so technically speaking, your age changes for you to get age requirement laws, if you really must, you can change your gender to get what should be a gender requirement law (1 man and 1 woman). I am by no means saying everyone should go out and legally change their gender, but just as your age changes, you can change your gender and you will be 'given those benefits'. And I would like to see a source for you saying that homosexuals are stuck being homosexuals and that it cannot change.

The point of this, if 'separate but no equal' can be applied to gender, it can be applied to any other law that has a condition that such as age.

I hate religion because on one side it talks about tolerance, and then it persecutes a certain group of people.[/QUOTE]
I don't see any persecution here. They are not saying to ban homosexual acts, they are saying to uphold the meaning of marriage. A contract between one man and one woman (and God if it is a religious marriage). Saying this is persecuting two same gender people for wanting to marry each other is like saying I am being persecuted for not receiving retirement benefits.

God didn't make Adam, and God didn't make eve. IT is all a freaking fairy tale, in a book full of liesand deceit based on a God created by man to control the masses.

God is nothing more than a way for the church to have control.

Got a source that proves that?
Note: I am not saying that I can prove got created Adam and Eve, I am just asking for you to back up your argument by proving with stone everything you have just said.

 

[Emperor Pan I]

I don't see any persecution here. They are not saying to ban homosexual acts, they are saying to uphold the meaning of marriage. A contract between one man and one woman (and God if it is a religious marriage). Saying this is persecuting two same gender people for wanting to marry each other is like saying I am being persecuted for not receiving retirement benefits.

If the church still had power, homosexuality would be banned, no questions asked. It is that simple. These people ask to have the right that everyone has to marry, and all the arguements brought up are jsut stupid little things to justify the fact your restricting people with different biological desires. That is all it is.

Got a source that proves that?
Note: I am not saying that I can prove god created Adam and Eve, I am just asking for you to back up your argument by proving with stone everything you have just said.

Well Adam and eve would make it biologicaly impossible for the human race to reproduce, seeing as how not only would geneticly we be ****ed, there is an abscence of the background behind where all the other people that appear in the bible came from. Suddenly there are people coming from nowhere, that didnt come from Adam and Eve.

Even the priest tells me full out those storys arn't real, there was no adam or Eve. One of the problems is somewhere along the road people stopped taking the bible figuratively, and started taking it literaly. It is a story, a story to fill in the gaps of the unknown, that is all the bible is. there are also themes of a basic good, but it isn't history, it isn't fact. The Bible's stories predate the actual conception of the time the events take place. It is full of storys that in reality were myths several different cultures and were adapted into the bible that we have today.

 

[Tipsy]

If the church still had power, homosexuality would be banned, no questions asked. It is that simple. These people ask to have the right that everyone has to marry, and all the arguements brought up are jsut stupid little things to justify the fact your restricting people with different biological desires. That is all it is.

Everybody has the right to marry, you just marry the other gender. And I am still waiting for you to show me a link or something that proves for a fact that homosexuality is a 'biological desire' and not something such as conditioning. All the arguments brought up after this thread was bumped is that 'seperate but not equal' does not apply to this issue.

Well Adam and eve would make it biologicaly impossible for the human race to reproduce, seeing as how not only would geneticly we be ****ed, there is an abscence of the background behind where all the other people that appear in the bible came from. Suddenly there are people coming from nowhere, that didnt come from Adam and Eve.

Even the priest tells me full out those storys arn't real, there was no adam or Eve. One of the problems is somewhere along the road people stopped taking the bible figuratively, and started taking it literaly. It is a story, a story to fill in the gaps of the unknown, that is all the bible is. there are also themes of a basic good, but it isn't history, it isn't fact. The Bible's stories predate the actual conception of the time the events take place. It is full of storys that in reality were myths several different cultures and were adapted into the bible that we have today.

Read any thread that has critisized the bible (and that I posted in) and it will explain in a very long way why that is so. Also, that still does not prove in any fashion that Adam and Eve didn't exist. I am not saying they did, I am just saying that you cannot prove they do not exist, otherwise it would have been proven a very long time ago.

 

[Lizardbreath]

I know some people may disagree with me on my views but I will still give them. Do I think homosexuality is right according to the bible. No.
Do I think the government has the right to say who can get married to who? No. Here is my view on the issue.
The term Marriage is a term that the church uses and therefore the church can state whether a couple is married. If you are going to give gays civil unions...then I am 100% okay because it protects the churches term of marriage.

 

[Master.America]

You know, I never really thought about it before, but ethics are slowly disappearing from today's society. As many of you have said in this thread already, nobody cares anymore.

With that said, gays can do what they want. Don't like girls? Fine. More for the rest of us.

 

[Lights]

I know some people may disagree with me on my views but I will still give them. Do I think homosexuality is right according to the bible. No.
Do I think the government has the right to say who can get married to who? No. Here is my view on the issue.
The term Marriage is a term that the church uses and therefore the church can state whether a couple is married. If you are going to give gays civil unions...then I am 100% okay because it protects the churches term of marriage.

The church doesn't own the word "marriage". They can use it within their ceremonies, as anyone can, but by no means do they have exclusive rights to who can use it elsewhere. For instance, not in secular, legally-approved marriages between two persons.

 

[Korittke]

You know, I never really thought about it before, but ethics are slowly disappearing from today's society. As many of you have said in this thread already, nobody cares anymore.

With that said, gays can do what they want. Don't like girls? Fine. More for the rest of us.

Quoted for truth.

This thread is shit. People discussing ridiculous trash like this need a hobby.

 

[Lizardbreath]

The church doesn't own the word "marriage". They can use it within their ceremonies, as anyone can, but by no means do they have exclusive rights to who can use it elsewhere. For instance, not in secular, legally-approved marriages between two persons.

-I think you might be wrong. I believe that homosexuals and straight people should be considered under the goverment as a "Civil Union" not the term "married" that way it makes them both equal. They should be entitled to the EXACT same tax cuts as straight people do when they have this "Civil Union." But as for letting them be "Married" That is a church term and shouldn't even be part of the governments vocab. Via the seperation of Church and state ammendment (first ammendment).

Does that make more sense?