Should gay marriage be allowed?

@oaktonarcher,

oaktonarcher wrote:

They have never tried to get favoritism, they just want equal rights, they want the ability to marry not to have better parking spots!

ok that?s a stereotype if I have ever seen one, not all gay have affairs and tons to married couples do, why do you think the united states has a 50% divorce rate with in the first 3 years of marriage?

Are you saying people have to have children to consummate a relationship?

"They have never tried to get favoritism, they just want equal rights, they want the ability to marry not to have better parking spots!"

Equal rights? They do, to marry the opposite sex! Why do you not get that?

"ok that?s a stereotype if I have ever seen one, not all gay have affairs and tons to married couples do, why do you think the united states has a 50% divorce rate with in the first 3 years of marriage? "

What size groups are heteros and homos? Homo's at the most maybe ten percent of the population? Now compare how many of them cheat percapita and then do the same for the hetero's. Hint, your not gonna like the answer.

"Are you saying people have to have children to consummate a relationship? "

The formation of this union is for the intension of what? To produce a family. Why is this benificial? It enforces the community to stick together for the good of all. That means self sacrifice by the parents for there own born offspring. As most agree the bond in most eyes they will fight to the death for there children. That bond is not there, no maternal instinct for something you did not give birth to. Meaning no benifit to our society. It is a natural law as well as a law of man. So yes the possibility of children has to be there for the civilization to prosper, they will not prosper with a gay union, they are a one generation family!

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+Marriage&btnG=Google+Search

Regardless of your belief on the reason people marry it is not to always bare children. That may have been the case in the past but it is certainly not today. People are very capable of having children without being married and you see that happening more.

So to me it looks like the government is playing favorites with Heterosexuals :wink:

1 Reply

@Brent cv,

Brent wrote:

That makes no sense what so ever. All heterosexual married people should not be considered family then because they can only hope for one generation of family if they are not able to have children.

Technically :wink:

P.S. Also it is alot easier to follow if you use
Quote:
tags around the text you are quoting than just " "
"That makes no sense what so ever."

Make as much sense as you saying they are denied/punished?

"All heterosexual married people should not be considered family then because they can only hope for one generation of family if they are not able to have children."

Your right, they are STARTING a family. They are not instantly made. Why do you say a Married Couple should not be consider each other family? There union is legal in the eyes of the law and church.

"Technically :wink:"

Technically your going around in circles.

"P.S. Also it is alot easier to follow if you use
Quote:
tags around the text you are quoting than just" ".

I know how to use tags i just don't. Is it madatory? If not, dully noted.

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

I don't think the sole purpose of forming family is to have children, that ideology seems a bit archaic to me. There are many heterosexual couples that marry and not have children. And the argument that gays cannot keep a long lasting relationship is ridiculous. Gay does to equal promiscuity, that stereotype is as bad as saying that all black people like fried chicken.

1 Reply

@Brent cv,

Drnaline wrote:

Your right, they are STARTING a family. They are not instantly made. Why do you say a Married Couple should not be consider each other family? There union is legal in the eyes of the law and church.

The church has nothing to do with this, the church does not have to accept their union for it to be legal. And as far as the law, it can be changed. And it should be changed.
People just have to stop looking at it as a man and a woman or a man and a man and just look at them as a couple, forming a household. That simple.

2 Replies

@JEB007,

Quote:

I know how to use tags i just don't. Is it madatory? If not, dully noted.

Look just trying to make it easier on everyone else reading your replies. The codes are there for a reason. :rolleyes:

0 Replies

@oaktonarcher,

oaktonarcher wrote:

Since they don?t allow non family members to see patients, so since a partner

is not a family member there for they can not be allowed to see the patient.

So it?s ok to treat minorities as lower class citizens because it is some what

accepted by our culture? So it?s ok to punish gays for the same reason?

Why isn?t there hope for gays, they can love people just like you or I can.

Their averages are not all that much better if any; and they are at not high

risk for health issues then anyone else as long as they take the same

precautions as strait people. There is nothing stopping any strait person from

cheating and bring a diseases back to his or her spouse, the same applies for

a gay person. So to say they are a higher risk is assuming they will not be

faithful, which is prejudice of gays in general.

"Since they don?t allow non family members to see patients, so since a partner

is not a family member there for they can not be allowed to see the patient."

Funny, ive been to the hospitol plenty of times to visit sick and injured friends. They never said you have to be family?

"So it?s ok to treat minorities as lower class citizens because it is some what
accepted by our culture? So it?s ok to punish gays for the same reason?"

I am a minority and i say they do no such thing! Explain again how they are punished?

"Why isn?t there hope for gays, they can love people just like you or I can."

Define Love?

"Their averages are not all that much better if any; and they are at not high
risk for health issues then anyone else as long as they take the same
precautions as strait people."

Not a health risk? Explain why all those gays died from aids. Because they were putting it where it don't belong. Why does the average gay male have over fifty partners a year? You don't think that is risky?

"There is nothing stopping any strait personfrom
cheating and bring a diseases back to his or her spouse, the same applies for
a gay person. So to say they are a higher risk is assuming they will not be
faithful, which is prejudice of gays in general"

Can you show me one example of one that don't cheat or are represent of a good gay family? If you have two faithful gays with no aids the one's i see in the public plight one of them usually dies form aids. I have seen it time and time again. There lifestyle is a disadvantage to there health.

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

Brent wrote:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3A+Marriage&btnG=Google+Search

Regardless of your belief on the reason people marry it is not to always bare children. That may have been the case in the past but it is certainly not today. People are very capable of having children without being married and you see that happening more.

So to me it looks like the government is playing favorites with Heterosexuals :wink:

Appears it must be a world wide conspiricy for it is not just our government it's the way the whole world is! I know, I know that doesn't make it right, LOL. "People are very capable of having children without being married and you see that happening more." How does it work out for married gays? Seems they are missing part of the natural equation.

1 Reply

@Drnaline,

Drnaline wrote:

Appears it must be a world wide conspiricy for it is not just our government it's the way the whole world is! I know, I know that doesn't make it right, LOL. "People are very capable of having children without being married and you see that happening more." How does it work out for married gays? Seems they are missing part of the natural equation.

It means that your point of the intent of marriage is mute :wink:

1 Reply

@JEB007,

JEB007 wrote:

I don't think the sole purpose of forming family is to have children, that ideology seems a bit archaic to me. There are many heterosexual couples that marry and not have children. And the argument that gays cannot keep a long lasting relationship is ridiculous. Gay does to equal promiscuity, that stereotype is as bad as saying that all black people like fried chicken.

"I don't think the sole purpose of forming family is to have children, that ideology seems a bit archaic to me."

Can you explain to me why your here then? Archaic, LOL. For being archaic it's still the most popular way of having kids. It appears most mens conquest for the span of there lives. Having sex is just an act, the real play starts nine months later. Leaving to it's own course a child will be on the way one way or another. Not so with the so called love they can share between two males of two females.

"There are many heterosexual couples that marry and not have children. "

As i have explained i am one of them. 20 yrs. We choose not to have kids, gays do not have that choice maturnally. We came to that conclusion for medical reasons for her.

"And the argument that gays cannot keep a long lasting relationship is ridiculous."

Can you show me some comparable examples? In the public eye would be good if you can, please?

"Gay does to equal promiscuity, that stereotype is as bad as saying that all black people like fried chicken"

Why do you guys keep trying to pull the race card? Thought we were talking marriage?

1 Reply

@Brent cv,

Brent wrote:

It means that your point of the intent of marriage is mute :wink:

If my point was mute they would have there legal marriage wouldn't they?

1 Reply

@Drnaline,

Drnaline wrote:

If my point was mute they would have there legal marriage wouldn't they?

The only reason they do not have their legal marriage is because of the religous right Wink

The reason they are not given the right to be joined is not because of the inability to produce offspring, it is because of religion.

1 Reply

@JEB007,

JEB007 wrote:

The church has nothing to do with this, the church does not have to accept their union for it to be legal. And as far as the law, it can be changed. And it should be changed.
People just have to stop looking at it as a man and a woman or a man and a man and just look at them as a couple, forming a household. That simple.

"The church has nothing to do with this, the church does not have to accept their union for it to be legal."

Really, when i got married i made a vow to my soon to be wife and my God. I take it as he had some thing to do with mine!

"And as far as the law, it can be changed."

Not without winner over people like me. We are the majority that oppose your kind of thinking. Why is there more legislation to restrict then to releave? The will of the people is being heeded.

"And it should be changed. "

In your opinion.

"People just have to stop looking at it as a man and a woman or a man and a man and just look at them as a couple, forming a household."

Why should we? You have not put up a good enough arguement to sway me? Couple forming a Household doesn't come close to the vow i made. Never considered the tax benifits, funny the gays don't see it that way? Seems they just want the title for the benefits and not the grunt work. Very telling.

That simple

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

Brent wrote:

The only reason they do not have their legal marriage is because of the religous right

The reason they are not given the right to be joined is not because of the inability to produce offspring, it is because of religion.

Yup, and you belong to the atheist left? Hear comes the religious card now? You guys run the gambit quick, funny for such a new site, LOL. appears i'm the only one with a conflicting view!?

1 Reply

@Brent cv,

Quote:

Not without winner over people like me. We are the majority that oppose your kind of thinking. Why is there more legislation to restrict then to releave? The will of the people is being heeded.

Ah the fruits of a republic! Where if the majority is wrong they are right anyways.... :wink:

1 Reply

@Drnaline,

Drnaline wrote:

Yup, and you belong to the atheist left? Hear comes the religious card now? You guys run the gambit quick, funny for such a new site, LOL. appears i'm the only one with a conflicting view!?

Wow I just got aligned with the left

That has to be a first.

I prefer Agnostic :wink: I dont put faith into a supernatural power. You might as well believe in ghosts...

Nope there are plenty of conflicting views on this site.

1 Reply

@Brent cv,

Brent wrote:

Ah the fruits of a republic! Where if the majority is wrong they are right anyways.... :wink:

If anything rightnow, LOL

0 Replies

@Brent cv,

Brent wrote:

Wow I just got aligned with the left

That has to be a first.

I prefer Agnostic :wink: I dont put faith into a supernatural power. You might as well believe in ghosts...

Nope there are plenty of conflicting views on this site.

Oh, you weren't right aligning with your statement? I got half of it right then! So i'm fifty/fifty, prety good.

1 Reply

@Drnaline,

Drnaline wrote:

Oh, you weren't right aligning with your statement? I got half of it right then! So i'm fifty/fifty, prety good.

I don't align myself with the right or the left :wink: I hold my own views and you can categorize them as you please.

It is funny that you seem to be insulting me by trying to align me with the left, you act like they can do no good yet the religous right can do no wrong :wink:

0 Replies

@Drnaline,

Drnaline wrote:

Can you explain to me why your here then? Archaic, LOL. For being archaic it's still the most popular way of having kids. It appears most mens conquest for the span of there lives. Having sex is just an act, the real play starts nine months later. Leaving to it's own course a child will be on the way one way or another. Not so with the so called love they can share between two males of two females.

You are talking about procreation. It is archaic to think that marriage is about procreation and the preservation of the species. We are beyond that, the human race is not going anywhere, I am here because my parents decided to have children after they got married. When people get married nowadays, the first though in their heads is not to have children but to share their life together.

Quote:

Can you show me some comparable examples? In the public eye would be good if you can, please?

Obviously u have not been to a college party, a night club, a highschool party, hell even a middle school party in a long while. Unfortunately promiscuity is a part of American society regardless of sexual preference, we take sex to lightly nowadays.

Quote:

Why do you guys keep trying to pull the race card? Thought we were talking marriage?

Hahahhahahahahahaha. If u knew anything about me. you would not be saying I am playing the race card. I was using an example!

1 Reply

Should gay marriage be allowed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know