1
   

So how about gay marriages???

Forums: Gay Marriage, Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
USAFHokie80
 
Reply Sun 30 Apr, 2006 06:14 pm
Just thought I'd start the convo.... since there seems to be so many other threads that mention homos. Why is it such a big deal to allow gay marriage? I don't understand the "save the sanctity of marriage." I mean, how does letting gay people degrade marriage any more than straight people do every day anyway? Half of all marriages end in divorce, and another large portion probably should get divorced. So it obviously isn't that magnificent of an insitution anyway.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,324 • Replies: 23
No top replies

 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Apr, 2006 06:17 pm
Re: So how about gay marriages???
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Just thought I'd start the convo.... since there seems to be so many other threads that mention homos.


fairly uncool way to start a conversation
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Apr, 2006 06:20 pm
And I think djjd62 put it in a much nicer way than some would. :wink:
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Apr, 2006 06:22 pm
Momma Angel wrote:
And I think djjd62 put it in a much nicer way than some would. :wink:


i typed a few others, i must admit Smile
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Apr, 2006 06:24 pm
I hear ya. Thought of a few myself. I like the way you put it. Laughing
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 09:08 am
Get a grip. I'm a homo myself. Personally, I think it's rather silly to get upset because someone calls you a "homo."
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 09:13 am
I have often wondered if bigots refuse to buy "Homo" milk in the super market . . .
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 09:14 am
Yeah, it's not like you're a kike, after all.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 03:00 pm
I prefer to be called a Prancing Queen, a limp wristed nellie, a light in the loafers pansy...

Maybe a thread for what to call a homosexual...


As to why gay marriages should or should not exist you, USAFHokie80, are actually making an excellent argument against them and in fact all marriage considering your view that so many end in divorce and many more should. Hey, why get married at all when the odds are against you?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 03:13 pm
The debate over homosexual marriages would be entirely inconsequential if it were not for the government benefits that are conferred on married couples. If marriage were solely a religious rite, akin to communion or baptism, there would be no controversy, or else the controversy would be confined entirely to the church community, as is presently the case with the ordination of gays in the Catholic church. It would, for instance, be simply inconceivable that legislators would propose a constitutional amendment outlawing the baptism of homosexuals. It would likewise be inconceivable that anyone would propose an amendment to outlaw gay marriage if the entire institution of marriage were strictly a religious matter rather than one that affected civil relations as well.

The real question, then, is not whether gays should be allowed to marry, but whether the state should be conferring benefits on married couples at all. If the answer to that question is "yes," then one must question why persons who enter into one kind of affective relationship are allowed to participate in those benefits, whereas those who enter into another kind are excluded entirely.
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Mon 1 May, 2006 03:29 pm
So I agree. I don't see why if it were purely a religious issue, not to allow it. I mean, abortion is legal, despite religious views on it. My boyfriend actually brought up a good point: gay people represent a huge amount of tax revenue.... and if you allow them to marry, and assuming you give them the same tax break, the gov't would lose a large amount of tax money each year.
0 Replies
 
RaceDriver205
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 May, 2006 07:50 am
Quote:
I have often wondered if bigots refuse to buy "Homo" milk in the super market . . .

Lol, thats the funniest thing ive heard today!

Quote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Just thought I'd start the convo.... since there seems to be so many other threads that mention homos.


fairly uncool way to start a conversation




Gay man: "Your a HETERO racedriver"
Me: "Yeah, I know"
Gay man: "You HETERO racedriver, you disgusting filthy HETERO!".
Me: "Thats great, ill tell you when I care what you think".
(The word homo shouldn't bother a gay man either). I laugh at you djjd62, you HETERO you!
0 Replies
 
material girl
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 May, 2006 08:00 am
I call my straight guy friends 'gayer' as a friendly insult.Is that acceptable?

Personnaly I dont think people should get married til they are in their 50's, they should know themselves by then and had kids, and they will probvably have met/lived with someone for a long time that they know theyd like to live the rest of their lives with.


I reckon its got something to do with sex (supposedly)being a sin.If straight people have sex there is a chance they are doing it to procreate, wheras gay people are doing it purely for pleasure.
Plus people used to have to be married in order to have kids or you would be condemned to hell for all eternity for not being married.
0 Replies
 
RaceDriver205
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 04:44 am
Quote:
Personaly I dont think people should get married til they are in their 50's, they should know themselves by then and had kids, and they will probvably have met/lived with someone for a long time that they know theyd like to live the rest of their lives with.


Eh?
You mean people have kids with other people and then marry other people?

The thing about homosexuallity is that it 'defeats the object of the exercise'. Sex is for reproduction. It thus requires a male and a female to be succesfull. As reproduction is a very important bodily function (technically the most important), and homosexuals do not perform the function, it is arguable that homosexuallity is a disorder. It does not get classed as this, and thus does not receive medical attention, which I find interesting.

Quote:
I reckon its got something to do with sex (supposedly)being a sin.

Thats actually an interesting one. I recall at some stage in history, it being banned somewhere by religous wackos (which naturally wouldn't have worked out very long). I don't understand how it got a sin label applied to it, again probably some religous mumbo.
0 Replies
 
Bohne
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 05:21 am
I have no idea what the big deal is supposed to be.
Many people are scared of what they don't know and don't understand!

However, I do have a hope!

One day, all straight people will be tolerant enough, to accept homosexuals as equals.
One day, all white people will be tolerant enough, to accept blacks, asians, hispanics as equals.
One day, all men will be tolerant enough, to accept women as equals.
One day, all religious people will be tolerant enough, to accept other religions as equals.

Well, one is allowed to dream...
0 Replies
 
material girl
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 05:25 am
RaceDriver205 wrote:


Eh?
You mean people have kids with other people and then marry other people?

Yep.

The thing about homosexuallity is that it 'defeats the object of the exercise'. Sex is for reproduction. It thus requires a male and a female to be succesfull. As reproduction is a very important bodily function (technically the most important), and homosexuals do not perform the function, it is arguable that homosexuallity is a disorder. It does not get classed as this, and thus does not receive medical attention, which I find interesting.

Yep, I think I tried to say that earlier.

Quote:
I reckon its got something to do with sex (supposedly)being a sin.

Thats actually an interesting one. I recall at some stage in history, it being banned somewhere by religous wackos (which naturally wouldn't have worked out very long). I don't understand how it got a sin label applied to it, again probably some religous mumbo.


I think sex is a sin because its, if done properly, really enjoyable.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 May, 2006 05:42 am
See, it's just that kind of attitude that will lead directly to the downfall of Western civilization as we know it! Laughing
0 Replies
 
USAFHokie80
 
  1  
Reply Fri 19 May, 2006 09:17 am
RaceDriver205 wrote:

The thing about homosexuallity is that it 'defeats the object of the exercise'. Sex is for reproduction. It thus requires a male and a female to be succesfull. As reproduction is a very important bodily function (technically the most important), and homosexuals do not perform the function, it is arguable that homosexuallity is a disorder. It does not get classed as this, and thus does not receive medical attention, which I find interesting.


Actually, not all that long ago, it was classified as a mental dysfunction. I would have to disagree about reproductin being the most important. If we're talking on a purely "survival of the species" type thing, maybe... But then, we've found ways around that. And let's not overlook the important issue of population control. The way I see it, queers are just Mother Nature's way of keeping our numbers in check. (and showing straight guys how to dress)


RaceDriver205 wrote:

Quote:
I reckon its got something to do with sex (supposedly)being a sin.

Thats actually an interesting one. I recall at some stage in history, it being banned somewhere by religous wackos (which naturally wouldn't have worked out very long). I don't understand how it got a sin label applied to it, again probably some religous mumbo.


I'm pretty sure it has something to do with that whole "thou shalt not lay with a man as thou lay with a woman"... blah blah abomination blah blah blah.

However, Leviticus also says that you shouldn't eat ANY shellfish, for IT is an abomination. You also are forbidden to plant more than two "crops" in a "field." And if you do, you should be put to death.

I think it's safe to say that the Bible simply doesn't apply to life today. Maybe 2000-ish years ago... but not today.
0 Replies
 
RaceDriver205
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 04:32 am
Quote:
The way I see it, queers are just Mother Nature's way of keeping our numbers in check. (and showing straight guys how to dress)

Lol, wierd.
Quote:
I would have to disagree about reproductin being the most important. If we're talking on a purely "survival of the species" type thing, maybe...

Yeah sort of. "The purpose of life is to continue life" and all that.

Quote:
Q: Eh?
You mean people have kids with other people and then marry other people?

A: Yep.

I think sex is a sin because its, if done properly, really enjoyable.


Lol, I like your ideas, they're funny! Very Happy
Guys kinda don't like the idea of supporting another guys kids - to put it lightly. And that goes across species - its non evolutionary competetive and thus all males take counter measures against it. Its a pretty weird idea MG!
Marriage is the most successful way of raising kids. This was much more the case in previous centuries, when if a women got pregnant to some guy and he cleared off, she and the baby wouldn't survive.

Quote:
One day, all straight people will be tolerant enough, to accept homosexuals as equals.
One day, all white people will be tolerant enough, to accept blacks, asians, hispanics as equals.
One day, all men will be tolerant enough, to accept women as equals.
One day, all religious people will be tolerant enough, to accept other religions as equals.

People aren't equal!! Down with communism!! Very Happy
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 20 May, 2006 08:55 am
"For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal."

"Our problems are manmade - therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be a big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable - and we believe they can do it again."

JFK

Perhaps more equal than you think.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New York New York! - Discussion by jcboy
California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban - Discussion by RexRed
Prop 8? - Discussion by majikal
The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic - Discussion by blatham
Gay Marriage - Discussion by blatham
Gay Marriage -- An Old Post Revisited - Discussion by pavarasra
Who doesn't back gay marriage? - Question by The Pentacle Queen
"Anonymous" hacker group takes on Westboro Baptist Church - Discussion by contrex
Doesn't banning gay marriage strip people of their basic rights? - Question by xxxx
An interview with Chris Kluwe and Brendon Ayanbadejo - Question by wmwcjr
Defense of Marriage Act Ruled Unconstitutional! - Discussion by tsarstepan
 
  1. Forums
  2. » So how about gay marriages???
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 09:49:24
▲ ▼