QuickSilverD
I Think... Therefore You Are
^^^ oh I see, then is ok, sorry I thought you were making fun of him
Homosexual marriage - do you agree?
- Thread starter Davey Gaga
- Start date
- Tagged users None
I support gay marrige, I mean who are christians, or left/right wing people to say what they can an can not do. Marrige is a title given to people for basically being truthful to one another and agreeing to spend there lives with each other. The fact of male and female, is just a stupid way to view things. Things change and people need to deal with it, married or no there will still be gays. Also for christians out there, your *religious* opinion doesn't matter because for anyone to say that its wrong because of a religious idea is imposing your beliefs on other people. And that... is oppresion...
QuickSilverD
I Think... Therefore You Are
The fact of male and female, is not just a stupid way to view things. is the normal way to view things and thus is not stupid
do you speak dutch great
ChaosVincent45
Blue Mage
Correct me if I'm wrong but, isn't marriage a sacred Christian tradition and if so, is it therefore not a right but a privilege and the creation of the religious beliefs of Christians and therefore their religious beliefs are very much a part of who can or cannot be married under the Christian religion.
If what your saying is true than everyone who wants to become the pope should be allowed to without the interference of religious values.
I do know that there is marriage in other religions, but Christian beliefs do not belong there.
Unless marriage has nothing to do with religion anymore.
P.S. I have nothing against the homosexual community and I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just looking for a good argument.
Raptorg
Dark Battle-Mage
do you speak dutch great
i'm sorry?
Edit by LL: Raptorg, try not to spam. Blackrose, I would have you thought that by now the warnings you have received, would have told you to STOP spamming in this area.
Miakyo
Chocobo Breeder
I'm a Christian. Born and raised the normal everyday life. I used to attend church regularly too. However, I am not against gay marriages.
I've always been brought up to an equality standard of living. To respect everyone and everything for what they are. So in all honesty, it doesn't even brush past me as a controversial view. Homosexual marriages happen, and I accept it. I'm not going to argue with peoples feelings and emotions.
From what I know, marriage sanctifies the celebration of two peoples love. So it shouldn't really matter what sex they are, but that's my view, as small as it most probably is.
I've always been brought up to an equality standard of living. To respect everyone and everything for what they are. So in all honesty, it doesn't even brush past me as a controversial view. Homosexual marriages happen, and I accept it. I'm not going to argue with peoples feelings and emotions.
From what I know, marriage sanctifies the celebration of two peoples love. So it shouldn't really matter what sex they are, but that's my view, as small as it most probably is.
Finally. It's nice to know that someone new on the block is christian but they're contributing something else to this thread other than they're a christain and they were brought up to be fag haters for no reason other than because they're gay. Me and you should be friends.
Homosexual marriage.
I have to make a blunt statement here, and I'm sorry if anyone is offended by it, but...
Why would you care if two men or two women get married? Unless you're the one who's getting married to the same sex, then it's none of your business. Homosexuals have to deal with enough shit in order to actually get married...Do you really think it's necissary for them to be hassled by stubborn people who just have a general dislike of them? No. Keep your nose out of other people's affairs.
On the contrary, homosexuals do everything the exact same way that straight people do. Why, why, why would a straight person CARE that that two men are having anal sex? Why? Because straight people do it to...
Why does a straight person CARE that two men or two women are married to one another? Marriage is forever binding. It comes with it's ups and downs, and regardless of what sex you are, it's a complicated endeavor. Even if you are a straight person who dislikes homosexuals, you should be HAPPY that they're shackled down in marriage - don't try to protest it!!
And you know something, there's nothing wrong with two homosexuals raising children together. I really really do not believe that a woman can be homosexual, seeing as that all humans are female in the primary stages of development. You cannot be a boy and have one of your Y's legs broken off. It doesn't work that way. So even if two gay people raise a child together, chances are it will grow up straight anyways. And even if it doesnt, then that's the child's own decision.
EDIT:
@ChaosVincent45.
Not all marriages are christian marriages.
There are non religious ceremonies which bind two people legally in this day and age. Marriage is a legal statement, not a fairy tale fantasy.
I have to make a blunt statement here, and I'm sorry if anyone is offended by it, but...
Why would you care if two men or two women get married? Unless you're the one who's getting married to the same sex, then it's none of your business. Homosexuals have to deal with enough shit in order to actually get married...Do you really think it's necissary for them to be hassled by stubborn people who just have a general dislike of them? No. Keep your nose out of other people's affairs.
On the contrary, homosexuals do everything the exact same way that straight people do. Why, why, why would a straight person CARE that that two men are having anal sex? Why? Because straight people do it to...
Why does a straight person CARE that two men or two women are married to one another? Marriage is forever binding. It comes with it's ups and downs, and regardless of what sex you are, it's a complicated endeavor. Even if you are a straight person who dislikes homosexuals, you should be HAPPY that they're shackled down in marriage - don't try to protest it!!
And you know something, there's nothing wrong with two homosexuals raising children together. I really really do not believe that a woman can be homosexual, seeing as that all humans are female in the primary stages of development. You cannot be a boy and have one of your Y's legs broken off. It doesn't work that way. So even if two gay people raise a child together, chances are it will grow up straight anyways. And even if it doesnt, then that's the child's own decision.
EDIT:
@ChaosVincent45.
Not all marriages are christian marriages.
There are non religious ceremonies which bind two people legally in this day and age. Marriage is a legal statement, not a fairy tale fantasy.
Last edited:
Kdy
Blue Mage
I don't believe in any God or anything and I dont see no problem with gay marriage my best friend since I was 12 is a christian and came out last year and he still see's himself as a christian and I have no problem with him been gay he still the same amazing person he was before he told me and still my best friend and I still love just as much and wish him nothing but happiness.
I know that he wants to finish his support teaching qualifaction then get married and have kids and I dont see why the fact he's gay should changed weather he gets want he wants. I've seen him around children and I think he would make an amazing dad and any child would be lucky to have him in their life. What he does with the person he loves is his own business and no-one elses.
I know that he wants to finish his support teaching qualifaction then get married and have kids and I dont see why the fact he's gay should changed weather he gets want he wants. I've seen him around children and I think he would make an amazing dad and any child would be lucky to have him in their life. What he does with the person he loves is his own business and no-one elses.
CreepingDeath
Chocobo Breeder
I think that it is there choice not ours and as for religous beliefs if they arent christians why should they have to abide by christians beliefs its quite simple they should'nt have to its a free country you can believe what you want and it does'nt really harm anyone at all.
ChaosVincent45
Blue Mage
If marriage is non-religious and simply a legal statement then I don't see how it would be legal for gay marriage to be prevented by any sort of religious opposition. I was under the impression that the term for such "marriage" (non-religious) was civil union.
It's only illegal (in most states) for marriage to be sanctified under a specific religion. The reason, obviously is because christians (and some other religions) follow the bible detail by detail and take every word literally. I understand that the bible says only a man and a woman should be wed, and that's fine.
And also in that tense, I don't understand why a homosexual would choose to be christian, seeing as that it preaches against their beliefs. If there are any gay christians here, please explain this to me.
No matter which angle you look at it, the argument just doesn't make sense...
There are some gay christian churches that will argue that the bible can be interpreted to support homosexuality. Here are some websites if you are interested in what they have to say.
http://www.gaychristian.net/
http://www.gaychristianonline.org/
http://www.lgcm.org.uk/
Idk. There are so many different branches of christianity, it's ridiculous.
IMO, people just alter christianity so that they can live their life in satisfaction without feeling guilty.
Everyone interprets religion in their own way and preaches it just the same.
Which is precisesly why christianity is so highly mocked.
Now there's a homosexual christianity??
IMO, people just alter christianity so that they can live their life in satisfaction without feeling guilty.
Everyone interprets religion in their own way and preaches it just the same.
Which is precisesly why christianity is so highly mocked.
Now there's a homosexual christianity??
UltimaNatus
Ex-Soldier
I'm feeling in a really debatable mood, so I'm making a few debatable threads
Do you agree with homosexual marriage?
Im a bit shocked by some peoples comments on here, but we are all entitled to our opinions.
Im not gay but I have alot of Gay friends. 2 of whom are married they fought through hell to get to where they are, their families have disowned them (which is disgusting, gay, straight, black, white, disabled, able bodied - whatever ... at the end of the day your family is supposed to stick by you) but theyre in love. They arent breaking any laws, they are not doing anything un natural in ANY religion and for those that think they are then I feel truely sorry. The religious leaders of past have admitted that these were not original writings in any testiments but added by the churches etc to outlaw it when they had no parliaments.
Being Gay is no different to being coloured, or being female as opposed to male. Everyone is entitled to be who they are and the only thing that is certain about religion/life/fate is that everything is here for a reason, which means there is a reason for everything to be as it is.
We are not cavemen any more and I think people need to stop the narrowmindedness. Its time for "straight" men & women to stop thinking that a "gay" male or female is going to be trying to "bed" them. Gay people are free to do what they want , or would be if straight people would get over themselves where gay lifestyle is concerned. There is enough badness in the world through racism and sexism, with murderes and terrorists WITHOUT being unfair to people who are just trying to live their lives as is ordained for them.
Sorry for the rant, but it reminds me of the old argument "should a white girl be allowed to marry a black man & vice versa" its shallow, its pointless and its just wrong !
Tristis Miles
Ex-Soldier
Damn, I've missed a lot.
What you think is logic, I find to be downright stubborn belief in traditional and stereotypical presets. There's quite a difference between the two.
I didn't address the fact that children are home alone or with a babysitter now that women are out of the house more, as I thought that was quite obvious. But alright, I'll acknowledge the line, and add this: it's not as if the child doesn't see their mother anymore. And anyway, it's idiotic to say that that was the only result of the women's rights movement.
In a Utopian mindpath. There's still inequality in this field, that's my point. Women are still generally viewed inferior.
...Yeah? Thank you for that observation...? Read it again and you'd know why I wrote in past tense. I spoke of the root of the problem, which requires past tense, as it happened in the past. Farrell was making up a modern excuse to grant women less money, which conflicted flat out to the root - therefore, his little justification is basically worthless.
I ask of how you view women, QuickSilverD - not what you think society has going for it now. Are you better than women?
Indeed you did, and I traced back to you having a problem with these gender roles supposedly not coming across clearly in a homosexual parent situation. I just proved how the gender roles have changed due to the progression of society - and whatever the gender roles are, are passed on to the children, regardless of sexual orientation. Gender and orientation are different things and related only in the sense that they help to define a person. Otherwise, they're dominantly unrelated.
You're using hard-edged stereotyping, ever hear of that? Again, you said yourself you're judging them on their orientation and don't care about their other characteristics. That's how I can tell you it won't have any affect. I'm looking at the big picture, not a single opinionated aspect.
How do you know? You're not involved, so you needn't really care, right? Or at least, you can't accurately say what you'll do. Take the example of when you get pissed off beyond your level of self-control: there's no telling what you'll do. When served such an injustice, you just react: unpredictable.
Well that was intelligent of you. Keep in mind the 'no' was there in a technical sense, as prior to that point in discussion we hadn't clearly talked about the whole of your question. Whole question taken to mind, I had to modify my answer. I knew you'd take the reply in the negative sense, that's predictable enough: highlight the fact that it's a positive result.
So because it's happening to other people too, it makes it okay? I don't think so. The existence of minority groups is a sad thing on its own, and the fact that the damn government takes steps to encourage this is beyond words. No, it's not fine. Not fine at all.
Yes, you. You and everyone who is against homosexuality/homosexual marriage. Look at the words you typed. "I'm not degrading, do what you wish but don't marry." You contradict yourself. Again. To hold back from full potential is devalued. Marriage is a part of life most choose to take: part of potential. To hold back from marriage is therefore devaluing.
...You were saying earlier that orientation could be influenced by outer means. QuickSilverD, I think you need to figure out what you're really thinking before you type it. It appears you don't know what exactly it is you believe, or at least don't have a firm foundation for it.
lol And a shot in the foot you will take. Google, for one, is a cool search engine, but not the most accurate. Like practically everything in this world, it's a business - top results don't rise upon fact and accuracy but rather, who paid what for a higher listing. One of my personal favourites: <a href="http://www.faultline.org/place/pinolecreek/archives/002717.html">Save the Tree Octopus!</a>. Of course, people know it as a common hoax now, hence layered with comments as such, but it earned a lot of money to people easily fooled. My point here: what you find isn't always reliable. I can shove down links that enforce my side too, but don't find that too necessary. In the links you posted anyway, I think you actually need to read, as quoted from the one Britain site:
Other links provided are from one person's opinion, a doctor who can't "discern from this study just what 'reparative therapy' had involved" and "quite unusual or rare to change sexual orientation." The so-called therapy consists in part of actually shocking these people with electrical current in punishment for moving (being aroused by) pictures of the same sex in the hopes that it would encourage a relief upon looking at the opposite sex. What the hell is up with that...? Basically, this 'therapy' is trying to install 'self-control' in these people, merely masking their orientation for awhile. In your sources here, it says the 'therapy' wears off. In conclusion: there is no "cure" or "treatment" for homosexuality.
Homosexuality is not gender confusion. It is the attraction to the same sex. How can you possibly call it confusion?
Again, Copernicus. Traditional people thought it was correct that Earth was the center, down with the radical badass scientist who thought the sun was, right? No. Copernicus proved what people thought was 'correct' wrong. Same here. There is no 'correct' or 'incorrect' sexuality.
Then why are orphanages flooding?
I'm shocked, this was right up your traditional alley. To be a traditional housewife, you would have to do the laundry, take care of the kids, have supper ready for your husband when he walks through the door, grant him a kiss and smile as you're ignored due to a newspaper in the way. You can't go out because again, you need to take care of the kids, and if your child cries and wakes you up in the night 25 million times, oh well, your husband needs rest - take care of it before he gets pissed off at you. If he invites his buddies over, you have to serve them like a waitress, and when you're not serving, get out of sight.
Exactly, Lilly. Males did. Christianity - an organization led by dominant white males and therefore heavily influenced by their ideals: not necessarily God's. In one of my posts a long while back, I explained how open the religion is.
Pwnage. The bible was created by mere people - these people entitled to their opinions and therefore: facts sway. You're also going from word-of-mouth to paper, error-prone. Then you're going from language to language, another error-prone area.
"I hate it, how people think we go around and hit on every man we find an interest in. Do heterosexuals do that? No. Neither do we."
And what I don't understand is, why would you feel uncomfortable if they hit on you? Remove the labels for a second. You have someone who's found something they like in you, you get a compliment, you now have a stranger who finds you to be above average. Isn't that a really cool thing to find out?
---
Nice views, UltimaNatus.
http://www.faultline.org/place/pinolecreek/archives/002717.html
QuickSilverD said:
What you think is logic, I find to be downright stubborn belief in traditional and stereotypical presets. There's quite a difference between the two.
I didn't address the fact that children are home alone or with a babysitter now that women are out of the house more, as I thought that was quite obvious. But alright, I'll acknowledge the line, and add this: it's not as if the child doesn't see their mother anymore. And anyway, it's idiotic to say that that was the only result of the women's rights movement.
In a Utopian mindpath. There's still inequality in this field, that's my point. Women are still generally viewed inferior.
...Yeah? Thank you for that observation...? Read it again and you'd know why I wrote in past tense. I spoke of the root of the problem, which requires past tense, as it happened in the past. Farrell was making up a modern excuse to grant women less money, which conflicted flat out to the root - therefore, his little justification is basically worthless.
I ask of how you view women, QuickSilverD - not what you think society has going for it now. Are you better than women?
Indeed you did, and I traced back to you having a problem with these gender roles supposedly not coming across clearly in a homosexual parent situation. I just proved how the gender roles have changed due to the progression of society - and whatever the gender roles are, are passed on to the children, regardless of sexual orientation. Gender and orientation are different things and related only in the sense that they help to define a person. Otherwise, they're dominantly unrelated.
You're using hard-edged stereotyping, ever hear of that? Again, you said yourself you're judging them on their orientation and don't care about their other characteristics. That's how I can tell you it won't have any affect. I'm looking at the big picture, not a single opinionated aspect.
How do you know? You're not involved, so you needn't really care, right? Or at least, you can't accurately say what you'll do. Take the example of when you get pissed off beyond your level of self-control: there's no telling what you'll do. When served such an injustice, you just react: unpredictable.
Well that was intelligent of you. Keep in mind the 'no' was there in a technical sense, as prior to that point in discussion we hadn't clearly talked about the whole of your question. Whole question taken to mind, I had to modify my answer. I knew you'd take the reply in the negative sense, that's predictable enough: highlight the fact that it's a positive result.
So because it's happening to other people too, it makes it okay? I don't think so. The existence of minority groups is a sad thing on its own, and the fact that the damn government takes steps to encourage this is beyond words. No, it's not fine. Not fine at all.
Yes, you. You and everyone who is against homosexuality/homosexual marriage. Look at the words you typed. "I'm not degrading, do what you wish but don't marry." You contradict yourself. Again. To hold back from full potential is devalued. Marriage is a part of life most choose to take: part of potential. To hold back from marriage is therefore devaluing.
...You were saying earlier that orientation could be influenced by outer means. QuickSilverD, I think you need to figure out what you're really thinking before you type it. It appears you don't know what exactly it is you believe, or at least don't have a firm foundation for it.
lol And a shot in the foot you will take. Google, for one, is a cool search engine, but not the most accurate. Like practically everything in this world, it's a business - top results don't rise upon fact and accuracy but rather, who paid what for a higher listing. One of my personal favourites: <a href="http://www.faultline.org/place/pinolecreek/archives/002717.html">Save the Tree Octopus!</a>. Of course, people know it as a common hoax now, hence layered with comments as such, but it earned a lot of money to people easily fooled. My point here: what you find isn't always reliable. I can shove down links that enforce my side too, but don't find that too necessary. In the links you posted anyway, I think you actually need to read, as quoted from the one Britain site:
Other links provided are from one person's opinion, a doctor who can't "discern from this study just what 'reparative therapy' had involved" and "quite unusual or rare to change sexual orientation." The so-called therapy consists in part of actually shocking these people with electrical current in punishment for moving (being aroused by) pictures of the same sex in the hopes that it would encourage a relief upon looking at the opposite sex. What the hell is up with that...? Basically, this 'therapy' is trying to install 'self-control' in these people, merely masking their orientation for awhile. In your sources here, it says the 'therapy' wears off. In conclusion: there is no "cure" or "treatment" for homosexuality.
Homosexuality is not gender confusion. It is the attraction to the same sex. How can you possibly call it confusion?
Again, Copernicus. Traditional people thought it was correct that Earth was the center, down with the radical badass scientist who thought the sun was, right? No. Copernicus proved what people thought was 'correct' wrong. Same here. There is no 'correct' or 'incorrect' sexuality.
Then why are orphanages flooding?
I'm shocked, this was right up your traditional alley. To be a traditional housewife, you would have to do the laundry, take care of the kids, have supper ready for your husband when he walks through the door, grant him a kiss and smile as you're ignored due to a newspaper in the way. You can't go out because again, you need to take care of the kids, and if your child cries and wakes you up in the night 25 million times, oh well, your husband needs rest - take care of it before he gets pissed off at you. If he invites his buddies over, you have to serve them like a waitress, and when you're not serving, get out of sight.
Bravo, Rydia =)
Lilly said:
Exactly, Lilly. Males did. Christianity - an organization led by dominant white males and therefore heavily influenced by their ideals: not necessarily God's. In one of my posts a long while back, I explained how open the religion is.
Bravezero said:
That was uncalled for. At least say why in your post of mindless insult.Sasuke-kun said:
How do you know it was God who intended it? Plus, you heard that story from oral tradition, and we all know how the "telephone game" goes. Anyway, there's discrimination scribbled all over that story, starting in one that Eve was the one who sinned: a woman, a so-called "being of evil." Thank you, middle-class white males....[/sarcasm]
Finnegan III said:
Pwnage. The bible was created by mere people - these people entitled to their opinions and therefore: facts sway. You're also going from word-of-mouth to paper, error-prone. Then you're going from language to language, another error-prone area.
What's wrong about it? Why can they be together, but not 'officially' be together?Cyezero said:
Agreed =S Where are the mods...?QuickSilverD said:
So you believe it merely because you're taught it, hm? Information goes in, you just accept it without question? What are your views, not other people's? Think about it.SotD said:
Hm, you'd think that with this explanation of marriage, it's not really a big deal. Makes one wonder why then so much opposition is raised when homosexuals want to get married. Why not just give them the same rights as everyone else?Emerald Fire said:
=/ You shut up SotD. I happen to agree with Raptorg, and he's merely explaining the unreliability of the bible. You on the other hand, have been posting nothing but offensive, non-contributing spam, as QuickSilverD has said. Sit down.SotD said:Shut up, keep yor blasphemus thoughts to your self, their ofensive
This is another thing I don't understand, and a gay friend of mine takes offense to this aspect. Allow me to voice his thoughts:Royd said:
"I hate it, how people think we go around and hit on every man we find an interest in. Do heterosexuals do that? No. Neither do we."
And what I don't understand is, why would you feel uncomfortable if they hit on you? Remove the labels for a second. You have someone who's found something they like in you, you get a compliment, you now have a stranger who finds you to be above average. Isn't that a really cool thing to find out?
---
Nice views, UltimaNatus.
http://www.faultline.org/place/pinolecreek/archives/002717.html
Calm down dude any way continueing my argument from page 11, I think if your christian then gay marriage should not be alowd as its against the bible and its blasphumus