PDA

View Full Version : 77-44, the law passes - marriage equality in New Zealand :)


Pages : [1] 2

kittyking
Jul 26th, 2012, 01:51 AM
Firstly I need to point out something. I am what you may call a centrist-conservative, I've worked for the National Party before and I do support most of their policies.

Last year was quite a hard year for me. On February 22nd, there was a huge natural disaster here in Christchurch. Nearly 200 people lost their lives, including some in the building directly behind the building I was working in. My house was damaged, my work building was torn down, I even relocated from Christchurch for a few weeks as sewage was coming out my front door.

It was awful in so many respects, however it also enabled me to leave a relationship which was not working out for me.

A couple of months later I began to get my confidence back, and I met the man I love called Steven. July 19th was our first meeting/date, I saw him at a bar a couple of days earlier but was too shy to introduce myself so I found him on Facebook instead.

Our first date wasn't anything flash, it was just a coffee followed by dinner. Turns out we had a lot of similar interests, but it was his beautiful eyes that made me fall for him.

In September we kind of mutually decided that we were in love, and we arranged a trip to Europe. He also got a job in Wellington starting in February 2012. I had a full time permanent job in Christchurch that I'd worked at ever since I left school, I was a bit iffy about giving it up however a very special lady gave me the courage to take a risk and go for it.

November 11th, on my birthday - at 1:11pm he proposed to me. He said some sweet words, a couple of happy tears were shed and then he put a ring on my finger.

November 19th-early January. We went to Europe, visiting alot of our extended families in UK. Also went to Italy, France and Norway. It was a very special trip, however what I most enjoyed was spending the time with him. I know he's the one for me.

I'm now a student in Wellington, and my fiance works here. We've been living together for about six months now. I've met his family lots of time and hes seen quite a bit of mine too. We are quite the perfect fit.

... the problem is, we can't technically get married in New Zealand yet. While we can have a civil union, I want to be able to legally call him my husband without having any thoughts in the back of my head saying 'well actually he's just a partner'. Also we have talked about having kids in 5-10 years time.

This bill has just been pulled out of the ballot, it would allow couples of the same gender to wed.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10822370

The student branch of the National Party is expected to express their support behind it, I really hope this law passes.

I'm interested to hear your opinions on whether or not you think that Gay Marriage should be legal.

kittyking
Jul 26th, 2012, 01:53 AM
I'd also like to thank those who sent me positive messages both last year both after the earthquake, after my breakup with my ex, and after I became engaged - too many to name, but you know who you are *big kitty hug!*

Certinfy
Jul 26th, 2012, 01:54 AM
No, but then I am a very religious man.

dybbuk
Jul 26th, 2012, 02:00 AM
No, but then I am a very religious man.

If Tomas would take your closeted ass you'd be out campaigning for gay marriage right now.

masha122
Jul 26th, 2012, 02:04 AM
i have no problems with gay at all but i voted no because of my religious and personal belief ; a relationship and a marriage have to be between two people of different sex it's the most natural way ; don't get me wrong im not bashing or hating on gay people but this is just my opinion ; i have a lesbian friend and she never got upset with me because of my opinion we just respect each other

SantaBabyTennis
Jul 26th, 2012, 02:04 AM
No, but then I am a very religious man.

Being religious and being against religious freedom aren't the same thing.

Mikey.
Jul 26th, 2012, 02:07 AM
Yes. In a legal sense alone, I don't see why anyone could really object. As long as both parties are consenting and no one is being harmed, then why not?

I grew up in a Christian community, went to a Christian school and have a lot of very religious Christian friends. After coming out to them recently a few of them have told me, irrespective of what their religious beliefs are they have no problem with having gay marriage legalised, giving gay people the rights they deserve under the law. I wish a lot more people could be that open minded and see things this way.

PS: Cute story kitty :lol:

WowWow
Jul 26th, 2012, 02:08 AM
If Tomas would take your closeted ass you'd be out campaigning for gay marriage right now.

:haha:

Novichok
Jul 26th, 2012, 02:11 AM
Yes. Gay/bisexual people should have the same rights as straight people. There's no good arguments against gay marriage anyway.

ampers&
Jul 26th, 2012, 02:38 AM
Not really.

Novichok
Jul 26th, 2012, 02:52 AM
Not really.

Why not?

Inger67
Jul 26th, 2012, 03:08 AM
No, but then I am a very religious man.

Seriously get out of here with that - you not fooling anybody with that, including yourself. You go from being gay one minute to being completely anti-gay the next..

delicatecutter
Jul 26th, 2012, 03:16 AM
Anyone who doesn't is evil in my book.

McPie
Jul 26th, 2012, 03:29 AM
go ahead, make my day :p






if it makes people more happier, then do it, even it's a little appreciation ;)

they are not much place for these people, and world say that everyone is equal, if you prevented it, then it is not :p






oh yes an opinion from straight :cool: (but cross-dressing :haha:) surprise? :p

Macomere
Jul 26th, 2012, 03:48 AM
Yes.
No, but then I am a very religious man.

If Tomas would take your closeted ass you'd be out campaigning for gay marriage right now.

:hysteric::sobbing:

*JR*
Jul 26th, 2012, 03:53 AM
No poll choices above apply for me, as IC the very word "marriage" as a term that should be separate from government recognizing unions between "consenting adults not named Kardashian". :tape:

Seriously, I think the civil authorities should solely do that part, and (optionally) the persons involved can have whatever religious authority "they want, and is willing" do a religious ceremony. FWIW, I have no objection to officially recognized polygamous relationships either. :bolt:

However, I think clearly exploitative unions (like Anna Nicole Smith with that year-from-dying 90 plus y.o. man) are another matter. As are many possible ones between close relatives, though they need not be sexual relationships to provide for survivor benefits, etc. :shrug:

Julian.
Jul 26th, 2012, 04:07 AM
Yes, because I'm gay and I want to marry my boyfriend one day :awww:

Roookie
Jul 26th, 2012, 04:35 AM
Yes. Gay/bisexual people should have the same rights as straight people. There's no good arguments against gay marriage anyway.

Nothing more to add.

kittyking
Jul 26th, 2012, 04:40 AM
No poll choices above apply for me, as IC the very word "marriage" as a term that should be separate from government recognizing unions between "consenting adults not named Kardashian". :tape:

Seriously, I think the civil authorities should solely do that part, and (optionally) the persons involved can have whatever religious authority "they want, and is willing" do a religious ceremony. FWIW, I have no objection to officially recognized polygamous relationships either. :bolt:

However, I think clearly exploitative unions (like Anna Nicole Smith with that year-from-dying 90 plus y.o. man) are another matter. As are many possible ones between close relatives, though they need not be sexual relationships to provide for survivor benefits, etc. :shrug:

I think no (explain your thoughts below) applies to you :)

What you've said there is a very good example of why gay marriages being illegal... is such a joke ANS and Kim Kardashian had what in my opinion are fake marriages. I define fake marriages as being a marriage which is all about something other than love, for example wealth and power.

Very few gay people have civil unions here in New Zealand, but for the ones who do or the ones holding out for gay marriage to be legal - there is nothing about wealth or power. They only want to marry, because they love what in their opinion is their 'better half' or 'what makes them feel like a whole'. For the state to say that they are not allowed to marry is not just stupid, it's plain wrong.

Straight people are unaffected by gay marriage, period.

miffedmax
Jul 26th, 2012, 05:00 AM
Yes. I am rather fond of my brother-in-law and the uncle of my kids.

égalité
Jul 26th, 2012, 05:08 AM
Obviously. Stopping other people from getting married because of your personal beliefs is like stopping other people from eating carrots because you personally don't like them. As enticing as a world without that disgusting vegetable sounds, I don't think that would be fair.

Pvt. Kovalenko
Jul 26th, 2012, 05:39 AM
Yes. Gay/bisexual people should have the same rights as straight people. There's no good arguments against gay marriage anyway.
Straight people are unaffected by gay marriage, period.
Basically, these quotes explain my opinion..

Unfortunately, I don't see this kind of prejudice, being eradicated soon..

Lord Choc Ice
Jul 26th, 2012, 05:48 AM
Kim Kardashian can marry for two and a half months (presumably for money, ratings etc.) and two men/women who love each other cannot? Fuck off!

The answer is yes :). I doubt I'll get married but that's beside the point.

BlueTrees
Jul 26th, 2012, 05:56 AM
Of course. :) Seeing as I'm gay, I'd be a hypocrite if I thought otherwise. ;)

Being gay not a choice anyone makes, it's like we don't choose who are parents are, what gender we are, what race we are, etc. People need to get with the times.

No, but then I am a very religious man.

Time to come out of the closet :wavey: http://www.menstennisforums.com/showpost.php?p=10162506&postcount=1002

http://i.imgur.com/NEWSD.png

Ziggy Starduck
Jul 26th, 2012, 07:23 AM
I definitely do and even if I didn't want to get married I'd still like to have the choice :shrug:

Vartan
Jul 26th, 2012, 07:39 AM
Yeah.

Onslow
Jul 26th, 2012, 08:25 AM
i voted no. to me "marriage" means a union between a man and a woman. A union between two adults who (at least in principle) can have children together.

but i do support civil unions with the same rights as married couples (except adoption).

Novichok
Jul 26th, 2012, 08:33 AM
i voted no. to me "marriage" means a union between a man and a woman. A union between two adults who (at least in principle) can have children together.

but i do support civil unions with the same rights as married couples (except adoption).

To me "voting" is a method used to determine leaders that only white, propertied males should be able to do.

Chrissie-fan
Jul 26th, 2012, 09:06 AM
Sure, why not? Whoever people want to marry has zero impact on my own life, so why should I (or anyone) object? Live and let live. :)

Beat
Jul 26th, 2012, 09:52 AM
i would never "support" any kind of marriage, because it's something i don't believe in, something that has become so trivial and disposable. but of course everyone should get married if they want to, they should just think about it very long and very hard. i have a family and have been together with the same woman for over 10 years. marriage has never even been a topic.

homosexual couples in switzerland have had the right to get married for 5 years now. i just read an article how - after an inital boom - the numbers for married homosexual couples are dropping again. one of the reasons is probably that you can adopt children as an non-married person, but not as a homosexual couple. :scratch:

Steven.
Jul 26th, 2012, 10:45 AM
yes cause I'm gay so I'd like to support my fellow homosexuals.

Personally, even though I'm such a cheese ball, I just don't find myself keen on getting married or anything - maybe in the future it'll change who knows. I just want someone I can trust my entire heart and body with and be happy with someone I love; being married or not doesn't change that.

that said I fucking love weddings! It's a good excuse to dress up :oh: and it's really beautiful and cute too I guess :p:awww:

stromatolite
Jul 26th, 2012, 11:02 AM
IMO if you're for gay rights you should be for the right of gays to marry. The whole "I've got nothing against gays but it's important to preserve the sanctity of marriage" thing is based on latent homophobia. Anybody who has nothing against gays and believes in the sanctity of marriage should applaud gay people's wish to marry, as opposed to more informal and noncommittal forms of cohabitation.

Gadis Desa
Jul 26th, 2012, 11:46 AM
No, but then I am a very religious man.
I thought I read your thread about you having "woohoo" with your male friend in motel or something like that :tape:
cmiiw

*JR*
Jul 26th, 2012, 01:06 PM
I think no (explain your thoughts below) applies to you :)

What you've said there is a very good example of why gay marriages being illegal... is such a joke ANS and Kim Kardashian had what in my opinion are fake marriages. I define fake marriages as being a marriage which is all about something other than love, for example wealth and power...

But I made NO distinction between gay, straight, and even polygamous unions. I think all (with exceptions like to prevent a golddigger like Anna-Nicole "marrying" for the inheritance; maybe unless there's an ironclad pre-nup the others affected agree to in advance) should distinguish between legal union and "the M word".

In other words, my "No" also applies to straight marriage (other than ppl "sanctifying" a civil union too). I largely agree with Beat's post #30 ITT; and hope that Suissie would also include under exploitative ones... a Convicted Conman like Herr Hofmann preying upon a professional athlete like the Peppermint Puzzle. :help:

Invisible Fan
Jul 26th, 2012, 01:17 PM
Sure, why not? Whoever people want to marry has zero impact on my own life, so why should I (or anyone) object? Live and let live. :)

I agree with this.

Kworb
Jul 26th, 2012, 01:26 PM
Yes of course. I think the "no because I don't support any marriage" response is even more annoying than the actual homophobic responses. Straight marriage exists and it's not going away. The discussion is about discrimination, not the institution itself.

Onslow
Jul 26th, 2012, 01:42 PM
Yes of course. I think the "no because I don't support any marriage" response is even more annoying than the actual homophobic responses. Straight marriage exists and it's not going away. The discussion is about discrimination, not the institution itself.

homosexuals can marry opposite sex too, so no discrimination there. marriage is not about love, it's an institution for manufacturing children...

Yoncé
Jul 26th, 2012, 01:42 PM
Yes. Mainly because with marriage comes a fair amount of legal privileges, such as power of attorney, that gay and lesbian couple are currently deprived of. And I mean gay rights are human rights, and its almost an abuse of our human rights to say that two people cannot marry for what ever reason. That being said I have no desire to marry anyone, man or woman :lol:

Ilikebigboobies
Jul 26th, 2012, 01:43 PM
Noone seems to respect the bible these days. :confused:

stromatolite
Jul 26th, 2012, 01:50 PM
homosexuals can marry opposite sex too, so no discrimination there. marriage is not about love, it's an institution for manufacturing children...

Seems a tad extreme. I know lots of good marriages. Lots of bad ones too, but the point is that it's what you make of it that counts. Blaming marriage for society's ills is not much better than blaming extra-marital sex.

Yoncé
Jul 26th, 2012, 01:54 PM
Noone seems to respect the bible these days. :confused:

Firstly not everyone follows the beliefs of Christianity anyway and also, have you ever eaten Lobster? Or other seafood? Eaten ham? Own anything with polyester init? Or any other fabric blends for that matter? Wear any form of gold? If you said yes to any, I'm disgusted by your lack of respect for the bible :rolleyes:

égalité
Jul 26th, 2012, 01:55 PM
homosexuals can marry opposite sex too, so no discrimination there. marriage is not about love, it's an institution for manufacturing children...

seriously now?
http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/9400000/Disgusted-Lucille-Eyeroll-Animated-gif-arrested-development-9465744-256-141.gif

kind of like how all the people in Murfreesboro, North Carolina protesting the construction of a mosque weren't actually discriminating against Muslims, because Muslims are free to go to a Christian church?

also, for lots of people, marriage is about love. :weirdo:

Onslow
Jul 26th, 2012, 02:07 PM
seriously now?
http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/9400000/Disgusted-Lucille-Eyeroll-Animated-gif-arrested-development-9465744-256-141.gif

kind of like how all the people in Murfreesboro, North Carolina protesting the construction of a mosque weren't actually discriminating against Muslims, because Muslims are free to go to a Christian church?

also, for lots of people, marriage is about love. :weirdo:

demonstrating is a basic right, not discrimination. by the way, try to gay-marry in a mosque :rolleyes:

if you look at statistics, marriage looks like money-making device for many women. they marry men who make much more than them, then divorce and take their money. so "sanctity of marriage" is long gone and poor argument against "gay marriage"...

BlueTrees
Jul 26th, 2012, 02:08 PM
Noone seems to respect the bible these days. :confused:

I don't recall saying I was religious :scratch:

Ilikebigboobies
Jul 26th, 2012, 02:09 PM
Firstly not everyone follows the beliefs of Christianity anyway and also, have you ever eaten Lobster? Or other seafood? Eaten ham? Own anything with polyester init? Or any other fabric blends for that matter? Wear any form of gold? If you said yes to any, I'm disgusted by your lack of respect for the bible :rolleyes:

:confused: Have you read the bible? I don't think so.

Onslow
Jul 26th, 2012, 02:10 PM
Noone seems to respect the bible these days. :confused:

you actually believe in an invisible man who created the world :help:

égalité
Jul 26th, 2012, 02:18 PM
demonstrating is a basic right, not discrimination. by the way, try to gay-marry in a mosque :rolleyes:

if you look at statistics, marriage looks like money-making device for many women. they marry men who make much more than them, then divorce and take their money. so "sanctity of marriage" is long gone and poor argument against "gay marriage"...

So when the KKK marches down the street, they're not discriminating against anyone? :lol: It's possible for something to be a "basic right" and "discrimination" at the same time.

If you want to talk about statistics, I'm actually teaching statistics at a university right now, so I'd love to see where you're getting that information about marriage being a "money-making device" for women. :spit: Also, I thought you said marriage was about having children. Which is it?

Yoncé
Jul 26th, 2012, 02:19 PM
:confused: Have you read the bible? I don't think so.

Have you?

Leviticus 19:19 reads, "You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together."

Timothy 2:9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments."

Leviticus 11:10 reads, "But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you." And shellfish is right in that wheelhouse.

Leviticus 11:8, which is discussing pigs, reads "You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you."

Also if you have ever had a round haircut I have more bad news for you.

stromatolite
Jul 26th, 2012, 02:24 PM
Oh boy, Bible study! :lol:

Onslow
Jul 26th, 2012, 02:24 PM
So when the KKK marches down the street, they're not discriminating against anyone? :lol: It's possible for something to be a "basic right" and "discrimination" at the same time.

If you want to talk about statistics, I'm actually teaching statistics at a university right now, so I'd love to see where you're getting that information about marriage being a "money-making device" for women. :spit: Also, I thought you said marriage was about having children. Which is it?

look at divorce rates and which way child support money is flowing... so it's not one or the other.

Kworb
Jul 26th, 2012, 02:53 PM
homosexuals can marry opposite sex too, so no discrimination there. marriage is not about love, it's an institution for manufacturing children...
Gay couples can also raise kids just fine. :shrug: Marriage is nothing but the government recognizing a union between two people who have expressed a desire to spend their life together, and giving them benefits. The only question is if you think gay couples deserve this recognition as much as straight couples.

LoveFifteen
Jul 26th, 2012, 02:59 PM
Not really.

Really? Why not? Just wondering. :)

=============

I support gay marriage when it comes to governmental marriage. Religions are free to do whatever they want in their house of worship, but they do not have the right to control what happens in the courthouse. If that were the case, then religions that prohibited divorce would have the right to make divorce illegal because it was against their beliefs. Good Catholics aren't supposed to "support" divorced people getting remarried, but they'd never expect the government to make it illegal. It's the same for gay marriage.

supergrunt
Jul 26th, 2012, 03:02 PM
I would like people who don't have a religious objection to give a solid, logical reason for why they don't support gay marriage. I have yet to hear any...

stromatolite
Jul 26th, 2012, 03:02 PM
Gay couples can also raise kids just fine. :shrug: Marriage is nothing but the government recognizing a union between two people who have expressed a desire to spend their life together, and giving them benefits. The only question is if you think gay couples deserve this recognition as much as straight couples.

Very clear statement of the issue being discussed.:yeah: A lot of irrelevant nonsense being dragged into this discussion, but this is the issue, plain and simple.

WixsonFan
Jul 26th, 2012, 03:07 PM
Yes, all of us are equal, nobody should suffer from any forms of discrimination

Onslow
Jul 26th, 2012, 03:12 PM
Gay couples can also raise kids just fine. :shrug: Marriage is nothing but the government recognizing a union between two people who have expressed a desire to spend their life together, and giving them benefits. The only question is if you think gay couples deserve this recognition as much as straight couples.

the key difference between marriage and civil union is children and possible adoption. why does the government (or church) give recognition to marriage in the first place? children. i think the government should ensure the right to both biological parents for children. and marriage is the unit where the children are produced. imo, lesbian couple can raise a child as long as biological father has the right to see the child and/or the child has the right to know who is her/his biological father.

wta_zuperfann
Jul 26th, 2012, 03:18 PM
Equal Protection Clause applies to everyone.

Miss Amor
Jul 26th, 2012, 03:52 PM
Nope.

Not everyone deserves equal rights, especially if you are born with the gay disease you should be made to suffer for it. If gays marry all the children in the world will turn gay and enjoy the church abusing them, which we do not want (the enjoying part! the abusing part can and should stay).

Marriage should be between a man and a woman as it is a religious institution which definitely doesn't predate organized religion and is upheld by the likes of Kim Kardashian. Allowing promiscuous gays to marry will only lead to straight couples cheating on eachother and divorcing after 72 days.

Marriage is about having children and not about being with the person you love and part taking in a contract which protects you socially, economically and mentally. Gays can obviously not have children as children need a fatherly figure in their lives and we all know gays are girly and lesbians don't exist. Only heterosexual couples like Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger can have and look after the mental and physical well-being of their children.

Gay marriage will lead to bestiality as we all know gays only rape each other and there is no adult consent involved. Similarly, gay marriage will also lead to an increase in pedophilia, which as a religious institute is completely unacceptable.

Gay marriage will also lead to the divine retribution as we all know god hates fags and invented HIV, the Tsunami and earthquakes to get rid of them. So what if he missed the plot with Malaria and Cancer!

More importantly, parents will have to tell their kids about why their friend bill has 2 dads and AINT NOBODY GOT TIME FOR THAT!

Sally Struthers
Jul 26th, 2012, 03:55 PM
Sure I support it because I don't give a rat's ass what you do in your own house... unless you have a meth lab next door to me. I do not want your house blowing up next to mine :oh:

Olórin
Jul 26th, 2012, 04:11 PM
Why would someone who voted "no on religious grounds" not need or want to explain their view?

I haven't read the Bible in a few years, but I can't recall any quotations by Jesus where he disapproves of homosexuality or gay marriage?

I know there are a number of comments in Paul's letters, but I think any rational person can agree that the word of Paul, a non-divine mortal is not the same as the word of God.

Number19
Jul 26th, 2012, 04:32 PM
Why would someone who voted "no on religious grounds" not need or want to explain their view?

I haven't read the Bible in a few years, but I can't recall any quotations by Jesus where he disapproves of homosexuality or gay marriage?

I know there are a number of comments in Paul's letters, but I think any rational person can agree that the word of Paul, a non-divine mortal is not the same as the word of God.

Well, Jesus is only in a small part of the Bible.

Novichok
Jul 26th, 2012, 04:33 PM
the key difference between marriage and civil union is children and possible adoption. why does the government (or church) give recognition to marriage in the first place? children. i think the government should ensure the right to both biological parents for children. and marriage is the unit where the children are produced. imo, lesbian couple can raise a child as long as biological father has the right to see the child and/or the child has the right to know who is her/his biological father.

1. In some parts of the world, gay couples can adopt children. You've already claimed to be against that. Is there any reason for that? Empirical studies have shown that children raised by gay couples are not in a worse situation than children raised by straight couples.

2. It's not at all evident that the government gives recognition to marriage solely because of children. Infertile couples can marry and eldery couples can get marry (if they're straight that is).

3. The government should ensure the right to both biological parents for children? As far as I know, every child has (or had) biological parents.

4. Marriage is not the unit where children are produced. I was not produced in a marriage and millions of other people weren't either.

5. Why do you have an obsession with children being raised/seen by their biological parents.

Your whole position is poorly thought out.

Novichok
Jul 26th, 2012, 04:34 PM
Well, Jesus is only in a small part of the Bible.

The point being made is that people who are against gay marriage for religious purposes still need to defend their position. There is not unanimous consent against gay marriage even within clergy members of the Catholic church.

mykarma
Jul 26th, 2012, 04:41 PM
IMO a marriage license should have nothing to do with religion. If someone wants to have their wedding in the church then so be it and those that can't because the church disapproves should be able to get married just by paying for the license and having the ceremony. It has always been my impression that there should be separation of church and state so churches need to step back.

debopero
Jul 26th, 2012, 04:53 PM
Nope.

Not everyone deserves equal rights, especially if you are born with the gay disease you should be made to suffer for it. If gays marry all the children in the world will turn gay and enjoy the church abusing them, which we do not want (the enjoying part! the abusing part can and should stay).

Marriage should be between a man and a woman as it is a religious institution which definitely doesn't predate organized religion and is upheld by the likes of Kim Kardashian. Allowing promiscuous gays to marry will only lead to straight couples cheating on eachother and divorcing after 72 days.

Marriage is about having children and not about being with the person you love and part taking in a contract which protects you socially, economically and mentally. Gays can obviously not have children as children need a fatherly figure in their lives and we all know gays are girly and lesbians don't exist. Only heterosexual couples like Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger can have and look after the mental and physical well-being of their children.

Gay marriage will lead to bestiality as we all know gays only rape each other and there is no adult consent involved. Similarly, gay marriage will also lead to an increase in pedophilia, which as a religious institute is completely unacceptable.

Gay marriage will also lead to the divine retribution as we all know god hates fags and invented HIV, the Tsunami and earthquakes to get rid of them. So what if he missed the plot with Malaria and Cancer!

More importantly, parents will have to tell their kids about why their friend bill has 2 dads and AINT NOBODY GOT TIME FOR THAT!

The sad thing is that some people seriously use some of these arguments...and actually believe them .I have heard people use the sentence I bolded to defend a wide array of things :o .

Number19
Jul 26th, 2012, 05:02 PM
The point being made is that people who are against gay marriage for religious purposes still need to defend their position. There is not unanimous consent against gay marriage even within clergy members of the Catholic church.

I meant as there is a lot of "stuff" in the Bible, which can even be contradicted somewhere else in a lot of cases. And the Bible isn't solely about Jesus. I also wasn't raised Catholic so the Holy Trinity isn't really a part of what I was fed when I was a kid. So, that and my own personal interpretation is that Jesus wasn't God, let alone exclusively speaking for God (even if he might say so at some point.)

But, I think people who are against it based on religious belief, they themselves believe saying that is enough. To hell with any logic or rationale, its right there in a book (well, the parts they've told about,)so they don't have to think. So, why ask for their thoughts.

Sombrerero loco
Jul 26th, 2012, 05:04 PM
lol of course, come on, its 21st century :tape: we shouldnt even wonder about that

ampers&
Jul 26th, 2012, 05:21 PM
Why not?

Really? Why not? Just wondering. :)
Marriage is a generally ridiculous Christian institution (in modern times). Why should gays have to suffer too? There are other ways to obtain equal rights anyway.

SantaBabyTennis
Jul 26th, 2012, 05:38 PM
:confused: Have you read the bible? I don't think so.

Not OP but I've read the Bible, which is how I know "a slave in serving his master serves God," and the Biblical definition of marriage is polygamy. Not going to apologize for not worshipping the god of ancient slave owning polygamists that got their land by their own account by leaving "nothing that breathes alive," or genocide with their god's help.

Yes, I've read the Bible, and I didn't ignore the yucky, uncomfortable parts like so many that thump it do.

debopero
Jul 26th, 2012, 05:40 PM
Marriage is a generally ridiculous Christian institution (in modern times). Why should gays have to suffer too? There are other ways to obtain equal rights anyway.

But shouldn't gays and lesbianS who want to get married have that option, whether you personally agree with the institution or not? Are you aware that there are certain privileges that come with marriage that often can not be obtained through civil unions/domestic partnerships?

Onslow
Jul 26th, 2012, 05:47 PM
1. In some parts of the world, gay couples can adopt children. You've already claimed to be against that. Is there any reason for that? Empirical studies have shown that children raised by gay couples are not in a worse situation than children raised by straight couples.

just to put "some parts of the world" into perspective... nobel peace prize winner (2011) supports a ban on homosexuality: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/19/nobel-peace-prize-law-homosexuality

2. It's not at all evident that the government gives recognition to marriage solely because of children. Infertile couples can marry and eldery couples can get marry (if they're straight that is).

it's evident if you stop kidding yourself... what's the most common question asked from a woman who's been married few months?

3. The government should ensure the right to both biological parents for children? As far as I know, every child has (or had) biological parents.

4. Marriage is not the unit where children are produced. I was not produced in a marriage and millions of other people weren't either.

5. Why do you have an obsession with children being raised/seen by their biological parents.

equal rights. currently men have less rights to children than women. many kids grow up never knowing their father.

dybbuk
Jul 26th, 2012, 05:57 PM
^^ lol, hat was some Sarah Palin shit right there. You actually managed to avoid responding to a single point in your rebuttal.

SantaBabyTennis
Jul 26th, 2012, 06:05 PM
just to put "some parts of the world" into perspective... nobel peace prize winner (2011) supports a ban on homosexuality: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/19/nobel-peace-prize-law-homosexuality



it's evident if you stop kidding yourself... what's the most common question asked from a woman who's been married few months?



equal rights. currently men have less rights to children than women. many kids grow up never knowing their father.

Closeted homosexuals claim marriage is exclusively for production of children, because otherwise they'd never marry someone if the inverse gender. They're also behind sex for procreation only so as to rationalize their utter lack of romantic and sexual desire for the inverse gender.

Onslow
Jul 26th, 2012, 06:12 PM
^^ lol, hat was some Sarah Palin shit right there. You actually managed to avoid responding to a single point in your rebuttal.

i'm wrong because sarah palin. good reasoning :lol:

Closeted homosexuals claim marriage is exclusively for production of children, because otherwise they'd never marry someone if the inverse gender. They're also behind sex for procreation only so as to rationalize their utter lack of romantic and sexual desire for the inverse gender.

i'm wrong because i must be closeted homosexual. right :lol: what has marriage to do with sex? nothing really, quite the opposite...

ampers&
Jul 26th, 2012, 06:28 PM
But shouldn't gays and lesbianS who want to get married have that option, whether you personally agree with the institution or not? Are you aware that there are certain privileges that come with marriage that often can not be obtained through civil unions/domestic partnerships?
Gays are lesbians. I never understand why gay people make that distinction. :facepalm:

Anyway, I am aware. Which is why I believe the battle should be whether or not marriage should even have that much power over human civil liberties; not gays gaining equal rights under the absurdity that is a modern marriage. That's all.

dybbuk
Jul 26th, 2012, 06:30 PM
i'm wrong because sarah palin. good reasoning :lol:

When did I say anything about right or wrong? I was simply commentating on your ability to completely avoid actually responding to Novichok's points.

Onslow
Jul 26th, 2012, 06:35 PM
When did I say anything about right or wrong? I was simply commentating on your ability to completely avoid actually responding to Novichok's points.

in what way? i thought i replied point by point.

dybbuk
Jul 26th, 2012, 06:47 PM
in what way? i thought i replied point by point.

She brings in studies about gay couples raising children and you respond with a Nobel Peace Prize winner saying she doesn't agree with homosexuality. You think that's responding to her point? Because from where I stand they have nothing to do with each other.

GoofyDuck
Jul 26th, 2012, 06:55 PM
Ofcourse, why not.

I feel bad for the narrow minded people here that hold on to age old "rules" based on nothing.

dybbuk
Jul 26th, 2012, 06:55 PM
As for some of the LGBT people in here against it, I understand where you're coming from. But on the other hand marriage is not specific to the Christian religion. To say broadly that the institution of marriage has always discriminated against same-sex couples simply isn't correct. And to tie marriage directly to Christianity as so many people do is the utmost in historial revisionism. There have been some societies that have sanctioned same-sex unions, and so many societies that marriage is a completely secular act that has no relationship to religion whatsoever. I don't know if I would ever want to get married (right now it's would be an no); but if some same-sex couples want to (rightly) claim marriage as a secular institution separate from Christianity and get married, I say power to them. While I see the reasoning behind wanting to avoid some of the "normal," heteronormative institutions and practices, there's just no good reason to stop gay couples who want to get married from doing it.

égalité
Jul 26th, 2012, 06:56 PM
the key difference between marriage and civil union is children and possible adoption. why does the government (or church) give recognition to marriage in the first place? children. i think the government should ensure the right to both biological parents for children. and marriage is the unit where the children are produced. imo, lesbian couple can raise a child as long as biological father has the right to see the child and/or the child has the right to know who is her/his biological father.

If they use a sperm donor, the donor and the lesbian couple both decide if they want an open donation or not (i.e. if they will be allowed to contact the donor in the future). Some donors don't want to be contacted.

Also, the sperm donor is not a "parent." He's a sperm donor. He has no claim to the child any more than a birth mother has to a baby that she gives up for adoption.

égalité
Jul 26th, 2012, 06:58 PM
look at divorce rates and which way child support money is flowing... so it's not one or the other.

Child support money flows that direction because children usually LIVE WITH THEIR MOTHERS, not because the fathers make more. :tape: If the child primarily lives with the father, then the mother will have to pay child support.

Number19
Jul 26th, 2012, 07:09 PM
No, I do not support gay marriage. Marriage is traditionally a religious ceremony and religion has traditionally vilified and condemned homosexuality for thousands of years. Therefore, I do not see why a gay person would want to embrace something that says they are wrong and describes their being as a 'choice' and a 'lifestyle'. In my opinion; when gay people want to (and campaign to) marry they live up to the tragically queer attention seeking stereotypes. It's not for their love of someone, but so that they can do it simply because they choose to and declare what they view as being 'equal'. They feel that this is the ultimate in level pegging with heterosexuals. In essence, marriage to me is not the ultimate commitment. It's the ultimate insecurity. People feel secure in the fact that once they put a ring on someone's finger and sign a few contracts they're technically less likely to go astray. If you need a ring on your finger and one on your partners finger to trust your partner and to prove your love for each other, then that's pretty tragic and backs up my thoughts on it being all for show. As a gay male, I have no intention of ever getting married. Nor do I ever see myself craving a ring on my finger to prove and show the world how much I love someone. I most certainly do not crave the acceptance of the people who told me I was wrong for being born the way I was either. Gay men and women should take the moral high ground and reject marriage in my opinion, but alas, we humans are fickle creatures and forget much too easily. Yes, I am aware of the legal benefits also, but I personally much prefer being an individual as opposed to one half of a partnership. I could write tonnes more on the subject, but I am very tired. Maybe I will another time :lol:.

Other than the condemnation of their sexuality, heterosexual people can say all those same things. So, it still comes down to equality, the equal right to freedoms to be acceptance by it or reject it.

LoveFifteen
Jul 26th, 2012, 07:27 PM
the key difference between marriage and civil union is children and possible adoption.

That may be the key difference in your country, but in the United States, there are large difference in tax law, immigration law, inheritance law, etc. that give married people profound rights that people getting civil unions do not have. The most profound effect for me personally would be immigration law. I tend to date foreign guys.

Only heterosexual couples like Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger can have and look after the mental and physical well-being of their children.

*death* :haha: I loved your whole post. Fierce.

Marriage is a generally ridiculous Christian institution (in modern times). Why should gays have to suffer too? There are other ways to obtain equal rights anyway.

I understand your sentiment, and I have a lot of issues with marriage personally. But if other gay couples do want it, I advocate for their personal freedom to be allowed to do what makes them happy, even though, yes, to me, it sounds like suffering. :lol:

Marriage is traditionally a religious ceremony and religion has traditionally vilified and condemned homosexuality for thousands of years. Therefore, I do not see why a gay person would want to embrace something that says they are wrong.

Non-religious people get married all the time. Their marriage doesn't need to be defined by a religion they don't believe in. Religion also said divorce, remarriage, and interracial marriage was sinful for centuries. That doesn't mean that modern couples need to think about that when marrying.

Imagine you were in a long-term gay relationship. You've been together 20 years. You get cancer and have 5 months to live. Imagine your financially struggling partner needing to pay lots of inheritance or estate taxes. Or the possibility that your hateful relatives contest the will. Or your partner being unable to inherit your benefits or pension. Some people don't view marriage as a religious ceremony about pledging their love to God. Some people view it as a government contract relating to finance, property, taxation, inheritance, immigration status, immunity from testifying against each other in court, etc.

Just because some religious people hijacked "marriage", it doesn't mean you have to define it that way for yourself. Non-Christians the world over also had relationships before white men conquered them, and, for example, there were same-sex marriages in the New World before the Europeans showed up. I don't understand why we have to define marriage by Christianity, which has been around for 2000 years, when people got "married" many thousands of years before that.

Onslow
Jul 26th, 2012, 07:28 PM
Child support money flows that direction because children usually LIVE WITH THEIR MOTHERS, not because the fathers make more. :tape: If the child primarily lives with the father, then the mother will have to pay child support.

only in theory, though (very small minority). where is the equality in custody issues?

Novichok
Jul 26th, 2012, 07:38 PM
No, I do not support gay marriage. Marriage is traditionally a religious ceremony and religion has traditionally vilified and condemned homosexuality for thousands of years. Therefore, I do not see why a gay person would want to embrace something that says they are wrong and describes their being as a 'choice' and a 'lifestyle'. In my opinion; when gay people want to (and campaign to) marry they live up to the tragically queer attention seeking stereotypes. It's not for their love of someone, but so that they can do it simply because they choose to and declare what they view as being 'equal'. They feel that this is the ultimate in level pegging with heterosexuals. In essence, marriage to me is not the ultimate commitment. It's the ultimate insecurity. People feel secure in the fact that once they put a ring on someone's finger and sign a few contracts they're technically less likely to go astray. If you need a ring on your finger and one on your partners finger to trust your partner and to prove your love for each other, then that's pretty tragic and backs up my thoughts on it being all for show. As a gay male, I have no intention of ever getting married. Nor do I ever see myself craving a ring on my finger to prove and show the world how much I love someone. I most certainly do not crave the acceptance of the people who told me I was wrong for being born the way I was either. Gay men and women should take the moral high ground and reject marriage in my opinion, but alas, we humans are fickle creatures and forget much too easily. Yes, I am aware of the legal benefits also, but I personally much prefer being an individual as opposed to one half of a partnership. I could write tonnes more on the subject, but I am very tired. Maybe I will another time :lol:.

Gay people want and deserve equal rights. That's why we want gay marriage.

A charitable reading of your argument is basically:

1. Marriage is traditionally religious.
2. Religion has traditionally vilified and condemned homosexuality.
3. We shouldn't embrace things that traditionally vilify us.
Therefore, gay people shouldn't embrace something that says that they are wrong and that their being is a "choice."

There is a fatal flaw with this argument. The third premise is incorrect. Black people up until at least the mid-19th century were traditionally viewed as being less than human. Should they have not embraced their right to be treated equally as whites? That seems obviously absurd.

Also, the marriage that gay people are advocating for isn't religious. It is secular. And secular ideals have not traditionally been used to vilify and condemn homosexuality.

Mistress of Evil
Jul 26th, 2012, 07:39 PM
Onslow, you are embarrassing me for 823979837274298 time. Please, stop!

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llq45vl4ON1qa4vt9o1_r1_500.gif

Novichok
Jul 26th, 2012, 07:41 PM
only in theory, though (very small minority). where is the equality in custody issues?

No that is not true only in theory. There are cases where women need to pay child support.

I don't know where the equality is in custody issues and I also don't know why child custody issues are pertinent to a discussion about gay marriage.

dybbuk
Jul 26th, 2012, 07:43 PM
God. You as a gay person can be against marriage, but you seriously need to step back and look at your reasons if you're seriously buying into the idea that marriage is traditionally a religious/Christian ceremony. :crying2: There are so many instances of it being secular and/or non-Christian. There may be actually valid arguments against gay marriage, but I assure you this is not one of them.

To add to this, it amounts to Eurocentrism to approach marriage as solely a religious and Christian institution. So many other cultures has never approached marriage in that same way.

donellcarey
Jul 26th, 2012, 07:50 PM
Yes, cause love needs to be celebrated.

Onslow
Jul 26th, 2012, 07:54 PM
No that is not true only in theory. There are cases where women need to pay child support.

I don't know where the equality is in custody issues and I also don't know why child custody issues are pertinent to a discussion about gay marriage.

i was just thinking...

what's your opinion on adoption, should male-male and female-female couples have equal right? if so... why if that's not the case in custody battles?

Novichok
Jul 26th, 2012, 07:57 PM
i was just thinking...

what's your opinion on adoption, should male-male and female-female couples have equal right? if so... why if that's not the case in custody battles?

Yes they should.

They're different because in one case, there's 2 parents trying to adopt. And in the order, two parents are trying to determine custody. It's obviously different.

miffedmax
Jul 26th, 2012, 08:05 PM
God. You as a gay person can be against marriage, but you seriously need to step back and look at your reasons if you're seriously buying into the idea that marriage is traditionally a religious/Christian ceremony. :crying2: There are so many instances of it being secular and/or non-Christian. There may be actually valid arguments against gay marriage, but I assure you this is not one of them.

To add to this, it amounts to Eurocentrism to approach marriage as solely a religious and Christian institution. So many other cultures has never approached marriage in that same way.

I know, right?

My ex was so annoying, the way she refused to let me have any more wives and take concubines, EVEN THOUGH IT'S ALL RIGHT THERE IN THE BIBLE.

Well, I think it's clear to anyone with half a brain why I had to rid myself of that Godless, sacreligious, Whore of Babylon.

GoofyDuck
Jul 26th, 2012, 08:07 PM
Onslow, you are embarrassing me for 823979837274298 time. Please, stop!

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_llq45vl4ON1qa4vt9o1_r1_500.gif

Too funny :lol:

Ciarán
Jul 26th, 2012, 08:33 PM
That may be the key difference in your country, but in the United States, there are large difference in tax law, immigration law, inheritance law, etc. that give married people profound rights that people getting civil unions do not have. The most profound effect for me personally would be immigration law. I tend to date foreign guys.



*death* :haha: I loved your whole post. Fierce.



I understand your sentiment, and I have a lot of issues with marriage personally. But if other gay couples do want it, I advocate for their personal freedom to be allowed to do what makes them happy, even though, yes, to me, it sounds like suffering. :lol:



Non-religious people get married all the time. Their marriage doesn't need to be defined by a religion they don't believe in. Religion also said divorce, remarriage, and interracial marriage was sinful for centuries. That doesn't mean that modern couples need to think about that when marrying.

Imagine you were in a long-term gay relationship. You've been together 20 years. You get cancer and have 5 months to live. Imagine your financially struggling partner needing to pay lots of inheritance or estate taxes. Or the possibility that your hateful relatives contest the will. Or your partner being unable to inherit your benefits or pension. Some people don't view marriage as a religious ceremony about pledging their love to God. Some people view it as a government contract relating to finance, property, taxation, inheritance, immigration status, immunity from testifying against each other in court, etc.

Just because some religious people hijacked "marriage", it doesn't mean you have to define it that way for yourself. Non-Christians the world over also had relationships before white men conquered them, and, for example, there were same-sex marriages in the New World before the Europeans showed up. I don't understand why we have to define marriage by Christianity, which has been around for 2000 years, when people got "married" many thousands of years before that.

Gay people want and deserve equal rights. That's why we want gay marriage.

A charitable reading of your argument is basically:

1. Marriage is traditionally religious.
2. Religion has traditionally vilified and condemned homosexuality.
3. We shouldn't embrace things that traditionally vilify us.
Therefore, gay people shouldn't embrace something that says that they are wrong and that their being is a "choice."

There is a fatal flaw with this argument. The third premise is incorrect. Black people up until at least the mid-19th century were traditionally viewed as being less than human. Should they have not embraced their right to be treated equally as whites? That seems obviously absurd.

Also, the marriage that gay people are advocating for isn't religious. It is secular. And secular ideals have not traditionally been used to vilify and condemn homosexuality.

I agree with everything you say.

God. You as a gay person can be against marriage, but you seriously need to step back and look at your reasons if you're seriously buying into the idea that marriage is traditionally a religious/Christian ceremony. :crying2: There are so many instances of it being secular and/or non-Christian. There may be actually valid arguments against gay marriage, but I assure you this is not one of them.

To add to this, it amounts to Eurocentrism to approach marriage as solely a religious and Christian institution. So many other cultures has never approached marriage in that same way.

Great summary of the previous two posts.

égalité
Jul 26th, 2012, 09:16 PM
only in theory, though (very small minority). where is the equality in custody issues?

10 to 15 percent of divorces (with children involved) result in the father getting sole custody. That's not a very small minority. That's millions of people. You can keep making stuff up if you want; I'll keep looking up facts. :lol:

Onslow
Jul 26th, 2012, 09:21 PM
10 to 15 percent of divorces (with children involved) result in the father getting sole custody. That's not a very small minority. That's millions of people. You can keep making stuff up if you want; I'll keep looking up facts. :lol:

10% is "eqalite" enough? ok, :lol:

edificio
Jul 26th, 2012, 09:25 PM
Yes. It is a civil/public union, and therefore should not discriminate between humans.

edificio
Jul 26th, 2012, 09:26 PM
10 to 15 percent of divorces (with children involved) result in the father getting sole custody. That's not a very small minority. That's millions of people. You can keep making stuff up if you want; I'll keep looking up facts. :lol:

That poster is trollish, so...:rolleyes:

égalité
Jul 26th, 2012, 09:31 PM
10% is "eqalite" enough? ok, :lol:

The court usually decides that the child is better off with the mother, for whatever reason. I don't know how you make the logical leap from "women usually get custody of children in divorce proceedings" to "women get married to suck money out of their husbands."

Not that any of this has anything to do with gay marriage. The "purpose" of marriage has changed through history. It's been for class mobility, for political alliances, for love, for children, for religious reasons... you can't say "marriage is about procreation and therefore gay marriage is wrong" because that's not what marriage is about for a lot of people.

égalité
Jul 26th, 2012, 09:32 PM
That poster is trollish, so...:rolleyes:

I know, I feel like I'm arguing with GoDokic. :D

Onslow
Jul 26th, 2012, 09:33 PM
That poster is trollish, so...:rolleyes:
someone disagrees = troll ?
i'll retire from "non-tennis" when i have posted 100 messages and get to set my fave players in my signature...

Onslow
Jul 26th, 2012, 09:41 PM
The court usually decides that the child is better off with the mother, for whatever reason. I don't know how you make the logical leap from "women usually get custody of children in divorce proceedings" to "women get married to suck money out of their husbands."

Not that any of this has anything to do with gay marriage. The "purpose" of marriage has changed through history. It's been for class mobility, for political alliances, for love, for children, for religious reasons... you can't say "marriage is about procreation and therefore gay marriage is wrong" because that's not what marriage is about for a lot of people.

"whatever reason" to you = lack of equality for those who suffer from it...

there is a larger equality issue in reproductive rights and it's between sexes. it can't just be dismissed like that.

*JR*
Jul 26th, 2012, 09:45 PM
10 to 15 percent of divorces (with children involved) result in the father getting sole custody. That's not a very small minority. That's millions of people...

As your # falls in the range between 2 out of 13 and 2 out of 20, its a small % regardless of the total number; which leads to an unrelated issue that might perhaps be addressed in its own thread: is the "nuclear family" ideal, especially if the parent(s) work full time?

It was different in a bygone era of extended families, and then of a sole "breadwinner" in a couple being the norm. Today (in the US and I guess most Westernized countries) a very common term is "latchkey kids" (whether living with one parent or two) who come home @ relatively young ages to homes with the adult(s) not there yet.

Mayors and educational administrators have tried things like keeping the schools open until lets say 6 PM, but in poorer areas the money for that has been a big "casualty" of the economic downturn. And as (in the US) schools are mostly funded by local property taxes, the kids of the poor (who need this most) are the least likely to have it. Hillary, you were right. :hug: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/it-takes-a-village-hillary-rodham-clinton/1111768156?ean=9781416540649

http://img2.imagesbn.com/images/103000000/103007726.jpg

mykarma
Jul 26th, 2012, 09:58 PM
1. In some parts of the world, gay couples can adopt children. You've already claimed to be against that. Is there any reason for that? Empirical studies have shown that children raised by gay couples are not in a worse situation than children raised by straight couples.

2. It's not at all evident that the government gives recognition to marriage solely because of children. Infertile couples can marry and eldery couples can get marry (if they're straight that is).

3. The government should ensure the right to both biological parents for children? As far as I know, every child has (or had) biological parents.

4. Marriage is not the unit where children are produced. I was not produced in a marriage and millions of other people weren't either.

5. Why do you have an obsession with children being raised/seen by their biological parents.

Your whole position is poorly thought out.
You all are crazy if you think you can reason with Onslow. Honestly I hope he's a troll because some of the crap he post is unbelievable and he can't believe it all. Like some others on this board I think he just craves the attention his post bring.

mykarma
Jul 26th, 2012, 10:12 PM
someone disagrees = troll ?
i'll retire from "non-tennis" when i have posted 100 messages and get to set my fave players in my signature...
MiffedMax can you make an exception for Onslow so he can get his sig?

kittyking
Jul 26th, 2012, 11:25 PM
Yes they should.

They're different because in one case, there's 2 parents trying to adopt. And in the order, two parents are trying to determine custody. It's obviously different.

There are millions of children worldwide who are abandoned every year. There are millions further who live in unloving home.

In New Zealand there are thousands of children who live in an unloving home.

There are thousands of gay couples (and straight couples who can't have kids) who would love to be parents, but effectively can't be thanks to the state.

While I can't give the exact number of kids who are in an unloving home, in my opinion one child in an unloving home is too many.

Sweety Darling
Jul 26th, 2012, 11:33 PM
No. But then again I don't support marriage at all :D

kittyking
Jul 27th, 2012, 12:17 AM
No. But then again I don't support marriage at all :D

So let's get this right, you don't think a homosexual male should be allowed to call the one they love a husband because... you don't think anyone should be allowed to be called a husband :confused:

Kworb
Jul 27th, 2012, 01:01 AM
No. But then again I don't support marriage at all :D
So if there was a forced referendum and the question was "should homosexual couples be denied the right to get married" you would vote "yes"?

kittyking
Jul 27th, 2012, 02:24 AM
So if there was a forced referendum and the question was "should homosexual couples be denied the right to get married" you would vote "yes"?

That's pretty much what he is saying yup :o

Ryan
Jul 27th, 2012, 03:13 AM
Just a warning - people stop responding to people who are CLEARLY trolls. You can smell them, poke them, side-eye them, but please don't respond. Thread will be closed if it gets worse. Thanks.

VeeJJ
Jul 27th, 2012, 03:13 AM
i would never "support" any kind of marriage, because it's something i don't believe in, something that has become so trivial and disposable. but of course everyone should get married if they want to, they should just think about it very long and very hard. i have a family and have been together with the same woman for over 10 years. marriage has never even been a topic.

homosexual couples in switzerland have had the right to get married for 5 years now. i just read an article how - after an inital boom - the numbers for married homosexual couples are dropping again. one of the reasons is probably that you can adopt children as an non-married person, but not as a homosexual couple. :scratch:

Agreed, totally.

I don't have any issues with gay marriage. Doesn't bother me, marry away. But to me I don't understand how it is important. It's just a label to me.

delicatecutter
Jul 27th, 2012, 03:18 AM
It's not just a label when it has to do with having equal rights. In this country, married people have many more privileges when it comes to taxes, next of kin issues, etc. I don't even see it as a religious issue at all.

miffedmax
Jul 27th, 2012, 04:10 AM
As your # falls in the range between 2 out of 13 and 2 out of 20, its a small % regardless of the total number; which leads to an unrelated issue that might perhaps be addressed in its own thread: is the "nuclear family" ideal, especially if the parent(s) work full time?

It was different in a bygone era of extended families, and then of a sole "breadwinner" in a couple being the norm. Today (in the US and I guess most Westernized countries) a very common term is "latchkey kids" (whether living with one parent or two) who come home @ relatively young ages to homes with the adult(s) not there yet.

Mayors and educational administrators have tried things like keeping the schools open until lets say 6 PM, but in poorer areas the money for that has been a big "casualty" of the economic downturn. And as (in the US) schools are mostly funded by local property taxes, the kids of the poor (who need this most) are the least likely to have it. Hillary, you were right. :hug: http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/it-takes-a-village-hillary-rodham-clinton/1111768156?ean=9781416540649

http://img2.imagesbn.com/images/103000000/103007726.jpg

That's actually reflective of a more recent trend, though, with more dads asking for and receiving joint or primary custody. The older model of Dad as an ATM is falling out of favor in a lot of jurisdictions and those numbers are going to go up.

Sadly, on the flip side there are still a lot more "deadbeat dads" than "deadbeat moms" out there, which makes it harder for good dads (and moms).

Singleniacki
Jul 27th, 2012, 04:25 AM
No, I do not support gay marriage. Marriage is traditionally a religious ceremony and religion has traditionally vilified and condemned homosexuality for thousands of years. Therefore, I do not see why a gay person would want to embrace something that says they are wrong and describes their being as a 'choice' and a 'lifestyle'. In my opinion; when gay people want to (and campaign to) marry they live up to the tragically queer attention seeking stereotypes. It's not for their love of someone, but so that they can do it simply because they choose to and declare what they view as being 'equal'. They feel that this is the ultimate in level pegging with heterosexuals. In essence, marriage to me is not the ultimate commitment. It's the ultimate insecurity. People feel secure in the fact that once they put a ring on someone's finger and sign a few contracts they're technically less likely to go astray. If you need a ring on your finger and one on your partners finger to trust your partner and to prove your love for each other, then that's pretty tragic and backs up my thoughts on it being all for show. As a gay male, I have no intention of ever getting married. Nor do I ever see myself craving a ring on my finger to prove and show the world how much I love someone. I most certainly do not crave the acceptance of the people who told me I was wrong for being born the way I was either. Gay men and women should take the moral high ground and reject marriage in my opinion, but alas, we humans are fickle creatures and forget much too easily. Yes, I am aware of the legal benefits also, but I personally much prefer being an individual as opposed to one half of a partnership. I could write tonnes more on the subject, but I am very tired. Maybe I will another time :lol:.


I can semi-understand your arguement but gay marriage NEEDS to happen for 2 distinct reasons.

Culture change: When something as fundamental to society as marriage is not a right for all people, it creates a social divide. To start to bring acceptance of gay people, like the 1st world has done in the same situation for sexism and racism, we need to have the same rights, regardless of the historical institution they are based. The simple fact of the matter is if we have different rights, we are not equal.

Legal reasons: Logistically, alot of legal powers are enshrined in marriage and marriage only. While some countries my try to replicate some of the rights through civil unions and the such, often gay couples are left with diminshed legal rights.

I wish someday to be married and raise children, without the culture change or the legal opening, current I can do neither of these things. Gay marriage needs to happen.

mykarma
Jul 27th, 2012, 04:26 AM
Just a warning - people stop responding to people who are CLEARLY trolls. You can smell them, poke them, side-eye them, but please don't respond. Thread will be closed if it gets worse. Thanks.
How about doing something about the trolls instead of threatening/punishing posters that go by the rules.

kittyking
Jul 27th, 2012, 04:54 AM
Just a warning - people stop responding to people who are CLEARLY trolls. You can smell them, poke them, side-eye them, but please don't respond. Thread will be closed if it gets worse. Thanks.

I apologise, I'll add them to my ignore list instead.

Please don't close the thread, I'd like more people's insight on this.

Harry.
Jul 27th, 2012, 05:48 AM
It's basic human rights. How can it be illegal to marry someone you love? Well, that's my train of thought anyway.

Towanda
Jul 27th, 2012, 07:30 AM
It's not just a label when it has to do with having equal rights. In this country, married people have many more privileges when it comes to taxes, next of kin issues, etc. I don't even see it as a religious issue at all.

The problem is that people don't recognize the benefits of marriage. They think gays just want to be able to marry so we can feel like we're accepted. They don't even think about the fact that we can't file joint taxes, can't put our partners on our health insurance, our partners aren't eligible for survivor pension benefits, and we can be refused the right to visit our partners in the hospital because we aren't related. There are many other benefits that we don't have. I'm a Buddhist living in a country that supposedly has freedom of religion, so it is beyond me why bible thumpers think they should be able to define my rights.

Towanda
Jul 27th, 2012, 07:41 AM
I can semi-understand your arguement but gay marriage NEEDS to happen for 2 distinct reasons.

Culture change: When something as fundamental to society as marriage is not a right for all people, it creates a social divide. To start to bring acceptance of gay people, like the 1st world has done in the same situation for sexism and racism, we need to have the same rights, regardless of the historical institution they are based. The simple fact of the matter is if we have different rights, we are not equal.

Legal reasons: Logistically, alot of legal powers are enshrined in marriage and marriage only. While some countries my try to replicate some of the rights through civil unions and the such, often gay couples are left with diminshed legal rights.

I wish someday to be married and raise children, without the culture change or the legal opening, current I can do neither of these things. Gay marriage needs to happen.

I think people often don't understand that civil unions don't replicate the same rights, even if they are intended to. Several months ago here in the U.S., there was a gay man who was in a serious accident. He had his partner listed as his emergency contact, so the hospital called the partner. When the partner arrived at the hospital, the staff would not let him visit his partner because they weren't related. That sort of thing has been a problem in the U.S., wherein someone at the hospital is anti-gay, so they refuse visitation. Well, the thing with this gay male couple is that they had a civil union so that they would have some rights in situations like this, but the Dr. refused visitation anyway, and said that he didn't know what a civil union was. The injured partner survived, but it would have truly been a horrendous situation if he had died.

stromatolite
Jul 27th, 2012, 08:40 AM
The problem is that people don't recognize the benefits of marriage. They think gays just want to be able to marry so we can feel like we're accepted. They don't even think about the fact that we can't file joint taxes, can't put our partners on our health insurance, our partners aren't eligible for survivor pension benefits, and we can be refused the right to visit our partners in the hospital because we aren't related. There are many other benefits that we don't have. I'm a Buddhist living in a country that supposedly has freedom of religion, so it is beyond me why bible thumpers think they should be able to define my rights.

I think people often don't understand that civil unions don't replicate the same rights, even if they are intended to. Several months ago here in the U.S., there was a gay man who was in a serious accident. He had his partner listed as his emergency contact, so the hospital called the partner. When the partner arrived at the hospital, the staff would not let him visit his partner because they weren't related. That sort of thing has been a problem in the U.S., wherein someone at the hospital is anti-gay, so they refuse visitation. Well, the thing with this gay male couple is that they had a civil union so that they would have some rights in situations like this, but the Dr. refused visitation anyway, and said that he didn't know what a civil union was. The injured partner survived, but it would have truly been a horrendous situation if he had died.

I fully agree, but don't think you should underrate the symbolic side either. There are countries in which the legal rights associated with marriage can be replicated by civil unions (although it's often necessary to go to some trouble to tie up the legal loose ends that are automatically covered by a marriage contract). But even then it's offensive for the powers that be to say to gays "well you can't marry, but you can have this other thing that is practically as good as marriage in every way." If they really believe that it's as good as marriage, why not just let gays marry and be done with it?

kittyking
Jul 27th, 2012, 10:27 AM
I fully agree, but don't think you should underrate the symbolic side either. There are countries in which the legal rights associated with marriage can be replicated by civil unions (although it's often necessary to go to some trouble to tie up the legal loose ends that are automatically covered by a marriage contract). But even then it's offensive for the powers that be to say to gays "well you can't marry, but you can have this other thing that is practically as good as marriage in every way." If they really believe that it's as good as marriage, why not just let gays marry and be done with it?

I'd just like to add the New Zealand perspective to this

In New Zealand gay couples are allowed to have a civil union. Effectively it's the same rights as marriage, but as stromatolite correctly pointed out it adds a lot of legal 'troubles', and lawyers certainly are not cheap. Primarily the reason why I want Gay marriage to be legal is because I want to be able to call Steven my husband.

Monica_Rules
Jul 27th, 2012, 10:49 AM
Of course I do

Everyone should be treated equal. The 'religious' argument is flawed. Religion has no power over marriage. In the UK 2/3 of weddings are civil ceremonies anyway so why isn't the church kicking a fuss over them?

debby
Jul 27th, 2012, 10:58 AM
No, but then I am a very religious man.

:spit: Please, you had sex in a church :oh:

Yes. Mainly because with marriage comes a fair amount of legal privileges, such as power of attorney, that gay and lesbian couple are currently deprived of. And I mean gay rights are human rights, and its almost an abuse of our human rights to say that two people cannot marry for what ever reason. That being said I have no desire to marry anyone, man or woman :lol:

Exactly exactly !!!!!!!!!!

Noone seems to respect the bible these days. :confused:

OMG :hysteric: Is there anyone out there following the Bible that closely? :hysteric:

Seems a tad extreme. I know lots of good marriages. Lots of bad ones too, but the point is that it's what you make of it that counts. Blaming marriage for society's ills is not much better than blaming extra-marital sex.

Totally.
I believe that has nothing to do with marriage but rather our mentalities. Maybe people break up more easily than in the past... My parents have been through very hard times, but they are still married, next year they are going to celebrate their 30th anniversary and they are only 48.

Firstly not everyone follows the beliefs of Christianity anyway and also, have you ever eaten Lobster? Or other seafood? Eaten ham? Own anything with polyester init? Or any other fabric blends for that matter? Wear any form of gold? If you said yes to any, I'm disgusted by your lack of respect for the bible :rolleyes:

omg :rolls: that's amazing :rolls:

demonstrating is a basic right, not discrimination. by the way, try to gay-marry in a mosque :rolleyes:

if you look at statistics, marriage looks like money-making device for many women. they marry men who make much more than them, then divorce and take their money. so "sanctity of marriage" is long gone and poor argument against "gay marriage"...

What the fuck? :lol:
Where are the satistics ?

Do you realize that you are talking about divorce, not marriage?

Have you?

Leviticus 19:19 reads, "You are to keep My statutes. You shall not breed together two kinds of your cattle; you shall not sow your field with two kinds of seed, nor wear a garment upon you of two kinds of material mixed together."

Timothy 2:9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments."

Leviticus 11:10 reads, "But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you." And shellfish is right in that wheelhouse.

Leviticus 11:8, which is discussing pigs, reads "You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you."

Also if you have ever had a round haircut I have more bad news for you.

Wow... I should read the Bible just to know what the heck Christian people are talking about in relation to a few subjects.

the key difference between marriage and civil union is children and possible adoption. why does the government (or church) give recognition to marriage in the first place? children. i think the government should ensure the right to both biological parents for children. and marriage is the unit where the children are produced. imo, lesbian couple can raise a child as long as biological father has the right to see the child and/or the child has the right to know who is her/his biological father.

:help: This post is so wrong.
I have two questions.

1/ Maybe because marriage give some rights to parents and couples? You know... My eldest brother married his girlfriend, one year after the birth of their first kid. The proposal was nothing romantic at all, they were talking during dinner.. and my bro was like "hey let's get married ?" "yes, you are right, we should marry !" :lol:
I don't know about other countries, but here, if my brother suddenly dies, at least his money will go to the widow and the kids. Otherwise only the kid gets all the money. Thing is that it might not be easy for the widow , esp if the kid is young (he can get that money at 18 only). Personally, I might change my view on that but in the future, if I am getting married, it will be for the kids if I have any.

2/ What if biological parents are beating up their kids? What if they are under drugs? What if they don't even want the custody of their kids and left them alone?

Nope.

Not everyone deserves equal rights, especially if you are born with the gay disease you should be made to suffer for it. If gays marry all the children in the world will turn gay and enjoy the church abusing them, which we do not want (the enjoying part! the abusing part can and should stay).

Marriage should be between a man and a woman as it is a religious institution which definitely doesn't predate organized religion and is upheld by the likes of Kim Kardashian. Allowing promiscuous gays to marry will only lead to straight couples cheating on eachother and divorcing after 72 days.

Marriage is about having children and not about being with the person you love and part taking in a contract which protects you socially, economically and mentally. Gays can obviously not have children as children need a fatherly figure in their lives and we all know gays are girly and lesbians don't exist. Only heterosexual couples like Alec Baldwin and Kim Basinger can have and look after the mental and physical well-being of their children.

Gay marriage will lead to bestiality as we all know gays only rape each other and there is no adult consent involved. Similarly, gay marriage will also lead to an increase in pedophilia, which as a religious institute is completely unacceptable.

Gay marriage will also lead to the divine retribution as we all know god hates fags and invented HIV, the Tsunami and earthquakes to get rid of them. So what if he missed the plot with Malaria and Cancer!

More importantly, parents will have to tell their kids about why their friend bill has 2 dads and AINT NOBODY GOT TIME FOR THAT!

Someone needed to repost it. :worship:

IMO a marriage license should have nothing to do with religion. If someone wants to have their wedding in the church then so be it and those that can't because the church disapproves should be able to get married just by paying for the license and having the ceremony. It has always been my impression that their should be separation of church and state so churches need to step back.

:worship: This.

Marriage is a generally ridiculous Christian institution (in modern times). Why should gays have to suffer too? There are other ways to obtain equal rights anyway.

There are rights related to marriage so no it's not ridiculous. It can be very useful.
Then if people only view it as an expression to ~4evah luuuv ~ , then it's good for them but yeah it's not a good reason enough :lol:

That may be the key difference in your country, but in the United States, there are large difference in tax law, immigration law, inheritance law, etc. that give married people profound rights that people getting civil unions do not have. The most profound effect for me personally would be immigration law. I tend to date foreign guys.

Imagine you were in a long-term gay relationship. You've been together 20 years. You get cancer and have 5 months to live. Imagine your financially struggling partner needing to pay lots of inheritance or estate taxes. Or the possibility that your hateful relatives contest the will. Or your partner being unable to inherit your benefits or pension. Some people don't view marriage as a religious ceremony about pledging their love to God. Some people view it as a government contract relating to finance, property, taxation, inheritance, immigration status, immunity from testifying against each other in court, etc.

Exactly ! So why the hell would not gay people have that right as well?


Honestly, about the symbolism or something about marriage, I couldn't care less. It's so old. I really don't care about religion at all. Therefore I don't have issues with marriage as I only view it as a contract.
It's good for two persons committed to each other and wanting to have a family or to have a family structure, marriage can also give them adoption.

So yes. I am totally supporting gay marriage. Same-sex marriage = straight marriage. That has nothing to do with religion. Some gay are catholic, thus they should be able to wed in a church....

I am so glad our new French president wants to legalize same-sex marriage and adoption. :worship:

StoneRose
Jul 27th, 2012, 11:54 AM
I'm pleasantly surprised by the outcome of this poll. In a lot of countries this is a tough issue. I'm in favor of gay marriages myself. The only possible reason i could think of against it (as it's the only real difference between homosexual and hetero sexual marriages really) is that a homosexual marriage can't produce offspring. Seeing that the world is overpopulated already this is more of a blessing than an issue however. Me and my GF also decided long ago not to have children, though not for the overpopulation issue really, so we're no better.

Expat
Jul 27th, 2012, 03:20 PM
Polygamy is banned in a number of countries without anyone shouting about the rights of polygamists and claiming it as human rights.
What we have to look at is what benefits and harm come by recognizing gay marriage? As far as I can see there is no reason to ban it but different people have different viewpoints. The bigger problem is that is how big a role we have given to government to define benefits due to the status of marriage. What about someone who is happily single, gay or straight? Why should he be punished.

stromatolite
Jul 27th, 2012, 03:29 PM
Polygamy is banned in a number of countries without anyone shouting about the rights of polygamists and claiming it as human rights.
What we have to look at is what benefits and harm come by recognizing gay marriage? As far as I can see there is no reason to ban it but different people have different viewpoints. The bigger problem is that is how big a role we have given to government to define benefits due to the status of marriage. What about someone who is happily single, gay or straight? Why should he be punished.

As a single male I think you have a point, kind of (the one about singles, not the one about polygamists;)), but it's off the topic of this thread.

Expat
Jul 27th, 2012, 03:48 PM
As a single male I think you have a point, kind of (the one about singles, not the one about polygamists;)), but it's off the topic of this thread.

No its not off topic.
We have to discuss why government gives benefits to marriages. As far as I can see, the only logical reason is due to the fact that a married couple overall raise kids better. I know a lot of liberals will disagree but I don't see a single mother raising multiple kids from different dads as an ideal situation for raising kids. There are exceptions see Barack Obama. Tax benefits are meant to encourage certain behavior and certain outcomes. Is there a benefit to extending those tax breaks to gay couples? In a country where we allow gay couples to adopt I would say yes.

But I am one of the few gays who would suffer what conservatives say is a marriage penalty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_penalty

The Dawntreader
Jul 27th, 2012, 04:04 PM
Yes, I support it as a right that everyone should choose to have and participate in, but I don't understand why anyone would want to get married these days. I don't get the incentive.

stromatolite
Jul 27th, 2012, 04:05 PM
No its not off topic.
We have to discuss why government gives benefits to marriages. As far as I can see, the only logical reason is due to the fact that a married couple overall raise kids better. I know a lot of liberals will disagree but I don't see a single mother raising multiple kids from different dads as an ideal situation for raising kids. There are exceptions see Barack Obama. Tax benefits are meant to encourage certain behavior and certain outcomes. Is there a benefit to extending those tax breaks to gay couples? In a country where we allow gay couples to adopt I would say yes.

But I am one of the few gays who would suffer what conservatives say is a marriage penalty. In certain circumstances (married with no kids primarily and high income for both partners) you are better off unmarried.

This part is on topic. As I understood it, your previous post was questioning the legitimacy of tax breaks and other benefits associated with marriage. That is off-topic: in the context of this thread, those benefits can be pretty much treated as a given. It is the right to those benefits, both material and immaterial, that gays are asking for, and anti-gay activists are trying to deny them. That's what this tread is about. Whether those benefits apply to your own personal situation, and if so whether you choose to make use of them, is not the point either, because nobody is forcing anybody to marry.

debby
Jul 27th, 2012, 04:09 PM
Yes, I support it as a right that everyone should choose to have and participate in, but I don't understand why anyone would want to get married these days. I don't get the incentive.

I don't know about UK's rights irt : marriage, but maybe for kids? :shrug:

The Dawntreader
Jul 27th, 2012, 04:14 PM
I don't know about UK's rights irt : marriage, but maybe for kids? :shrug:

Well, that's easy- don't have kids. And besides, there's still means of inheritance even for unmarried couple's children.

Kworb
Jul 27th, 2012, 04:14 PM
Polygamy is banned in a number of countries without anyone shouting about the rights of polygamists and claiming it as human rights.
What we have to look at is what benefits and harm come by recognizing gay marriage? As far as I can see there is no reason to ban it but different people have different viewpoints. The bigger problem is that is how big a role we have given to government to define benefits due to the status of marriage. What about someone who is happily single, gay or straight? Why should he be punished.
Polygamy is not illegal, but it's not recognized by many governments. And I can see why. You'd have to rebuild tons of existing laws from scratch. It's not just changing "man and woman" to "person and person".

Whether marriage should exist at all and what it means (legally and financially) is another discussion. This is only about the discrimination between straight and gay and whether it can be justified.

The Dawntreader
Jul 27th, 2012, 04:18 PM
No, but then I am a very religious man.

Bullshit. Didn't you admit to having wet dreams to Berdych a while back on here?

debby
Jul 27th, 2012, 04:21 PM
Well, that's easy- don't have kids. And besides, there's still means of inheritance even for unmarried couple's children.

So because marriage is stupid means we should not have kids? That's some weird argument. Why does marriage disturb you?

See, I do see why people don't want to be married (I consider this as a contract), but I don't see why marriage is stupid either.

Nah, not as much advantages as a married couple have, at least not in France. It's better to be married, I actually don't see the big deal about it :shrug: it's only a marriage, a contract to protect the ones you love and basta.
I am not going to judge those who want to marry nor who don't want to.

The Dawntreader
Jul 27th, 2012, 04:27 PM
So because marriage is stupid means we should not have kids? That's some weird argument. Why does marriage disturb you?

See, I do see why people don't want to be married (I consider this as a contract), but I don't see why marriage is stupid either.

Nah, not as much advantages as a married couple have, at least not in France. It's better to be married, I actually don't see the big deal about it :shrug: it's only a marriage, a contract to protect the ones you love and basta.
I am not going to judge those who want to marry nor who don't want to.

No, have kids, but their lives would be easier without them, especially with all the legal red tape that comes with being unmarried etc. I could write an essay on the disincentive to not have children, but that's a separate thread.

I'm not against people getting married. But how significant is the impact on their lives with or without it? And I don't really care about any sanctimonious religious reasoning.

Expat
Jul 27th, 2012, 04:33 PM
Polygamy is not illegal, but it's not recognized by many governments. And I can see why. You'd have to rebuild tons of existing laws from scratch. It's not just changing "man and woman" to "person and person".

Whether marriage should exist at all and what it means (legally and financially) is another discussion. This is only about the discrimination between straight and gay and whether it can be justified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds_Act

debby
Jul 27th, 2012, 04:51 PM
No, have kids, but their lives would be easier without them, especially with all the legal red tape that comes with being unmarried etc. I could write an essay on the disincentive to not have children, but that's a separate thread.

I'm not against people getting married. But how significant is the impact on their lives with or without it? And I don't really care about any sanctimonious religious reasoning.

Well, everyone has the right to have kids. If you get married to have kids, outside of religious traditions for your family, well that's weird.
But getting married bc you have kids is more and more common. Thus, a marriage doesn't have a huge impact on their life, but it protects them better.

tenn_ace
Jul 27th, 2012, 04:54 PM
yes and I'm already HAPPILY married 5 years now to a wonderful man I have been with for 17 years with :)

Kworb
Jul 27th, 2012, 05:36 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds_Act

But that doesn't stop a group of people from living in one house and having sex with each other :shrug:

miffedmax
Jul 27th, 2012, 06:46 PM
It's interesting to me that the religious right has managed to make this about protecting THEIR values.

What about denominations like the Unitarian/Universalists, who recognize gay marriage yet are prohibited from allowing their members to marry?

I personally have no problem if the Westboro Baptist Church says they won't perform gay marriages. But I don't see how the government can refuse to permit a religious organization--one that it has already recognized in every other way, I'm not talking about Max Holy Religion of the Bangs here*--to perform legally binding marriages between two consenting members of its congregation.





*Of course we recognize marriage between gay couples, as long as at least one of them has bangs.

KeysisGOAT
Jul 27th, 2012, 07:39 PM
I support marriage equality. I try to give as few shits about people's sexual preferences as I can. If straight couples have rights that gay couples are denied, that should be corrected. I don't give a fuck whether that means letting gay people get married or removing heterosexual couples right to get married (essentially making civil unions the only way to get the legal protection of a marriage).

People should have equal rights, regardless of whether they want to marry Samantha or Samuel.

KeysisGOAT
Jul 27th, 2012, 07:47 PM
Yes, I support it as a right that everyone should choose to have and participate in, but I don't understand why anyone would want to get married these days. I don't get the incentive.

Protection. It's summed up nicely here:

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_067362.pdf

KeysisGOAT
Jul 27th, 2012, 07:55 PM
Islam allows prepubescent girls to marry middle aged men, so should the US government allow them to marry?

So did Christianity for centuries. And as recently as 100 years ago, it would be expected for men to marry women much younger than themselves.

Novichok
Jul 27th, 2012, 08:15 PM
Islam allows prepubescent girls to marry middle aged men, so should the US government allow them to marry?

Prepubescent girls =/= consenting adults.

KeysisGOAT
Jul 27th, 2012, 08:18 PM
Prepubescent girls =/= consenting adults.

Also this.

Onslow
Jul 28th, 2012, 11:40 AM
more about liberal idea of tolerance...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/05/manny-pacquiao-banned-grove-gay-marriage-remarks.html

Boxer Manny Pacquiao has been banned from the Grove shopping mall because of comments he made about gay marriage.

In an interview with National Conservative Examiner, Pacquiao addressed President Obama's recent endorsement of gay marriage.

"God's words first ... obey God's law first before considering the laws of man," Pacquiao told the Examiner.

"God only expects man and woman to be together and to be legally married," the boxer is quoted as saying. "It should not be of the same sex, so as to adulterate the altar of matrimony, like in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah."

..

"I'm not against gay people.… I have a relative who is also gay," the boxer insists. "We can't help it if they were born that way. What I'm critical off are actions that violate the word of God. I only gave out my opinion that same-sex marriage is against the law of God."

On Monday night, the Grove, owned by shopping mall magnate Rick Caruso, posted a statement on Twitter saying Pacquiao is not allowed on the premises.

The tweet reads: "Boxer Manny Pacquiao is not welcome at @TheGroveLA. @TheGroveLA is a gathering place for all Angelenos, not a place for intolerance."

debby
Jul 28th, 2012, 11:58 AM
The law of God :spit:

Well, maybe that makes me someone intolerant but I don't want to be friends with homophobic and/or racist people. Just the way it is. Does it make me intolerant ? A friend once told me that.... but that has nothing to do with a shop mall which is a public place.

In that case, it's a shop mall... and it's only one place, there are more places where black people can't enter I am sure of it, for instance.

pov
Jul 28th, 2012, 03:29 PM
I'm pleasantly surprised that there are posters at TF who don't support it. Sometimes I support it, most of the time I'm just "not against it." One thing I'll say is that there are few people who discuss the issue in a sane objective way.

Towanda
Jul 28th, 2012, 07:12 PM
Yes, I support it as a right that everyone should choose to have and participate in, but I don't understand why anyone would want to get married these days. I don't get the incentive.

I'm not against people getting married. But how significant is the impact on their lives with or without it? And I don't really care about any sanctimonious religious reasoning.



When my partner was diagnosed with cancer several years ago, I spent my entire retirement paying her medical bills and that wasn't a small amount of money. We would have married many years before that if we could have, and if we had been able to do that she would have been on my health insurance, I would still have my home, I would be retired, and I would have received a joint and survivor annuity from her pension. Any couple, if they are committed to each other and plan to stay together, would be foolish to not consider the benefits to marrying. While I would never suggest someone marry for the benefits if they were not otherwise inclined to marry, these benefits certainly are incentives to marry given the alternative of losing everything you have worked for.

kittyking
Jul 30th, 2012, 03:58 AM
Still above 80% :)

Ziggy Starduck
Jul 30th, 2012, 04:19 AM
When my partner was diagnosed with cancer several years ago, I spent my entire retirement paying her medical bills and that wasn't a small amount of money. We would have married many years before that if we could have, and if we had been able to do that she would have been on my health insurance, I would still have my home, I would be retired, and I would have received a joint and survivor annuity from her pension. Any couple, if they are committed to each other and plan to stay together, would be foolish to not consider the benefits to marrying. While I would never suggest someone marry for the benefits if they were not otherwise inclined to marry, these benefits certainly are incentives to marry given the alternative of losing everything you have worked for.

Unfortunately I must spread rep around before giving you more Towanda :sad: What a beautiful and touching post :hug: Getting married is so much about protecting each other's rights as it is about love and commitment.

Milito22
Jul 30th, 2012, 06:05 AM
Argentina: more than 6000 gay couples married in two years :D

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=12391&MediaType=1&Category=24

Towanda
Jul 30th, 2012, 07:20 AM
Unfortunately I must spread rep around before giving you more Towanda :sad: What a beautiful and touching post :hug: Getting married is so much about protecting each other's rights as it is about love and commitment.

Thanks Ziggy! :hug: It seems that many people think we just want to mimic heterosexual relationships by marrying, and perhaps getting some nice tupperware as a gift. It's too bad they don't consider all the benefits they get and how their lives would change if they didn't get those benefits. I want to believe that many just take those benefits for granted, but it's just as likely that because of their hatred, they think we don't deserve any benefits.

Sam L
Jul 30th, 2012, 09:46 AM
In a gay marriage, do couples ever take the last name of their partner? If so, how do they decide which name to take?

KeysisGOAT
Jul 30th, 2012, 11:43 AM
In a gay marriage, do couples ever take the last name of their partner? If so, how do they decide which name to take?

You realise in heterosexual marriages there's no obligation for the woman to change her name. There are even cases where the husband takes on the wife's surname.

Presumably they have a discussion about it. Ya know, the same way they pick out the flowers, sort out the seating plan and the other associated things that need to be done before - as Beyonce would say "putting a ring on it".

Mikey.
Jul 30th, 2012, 11:54 AM
You realise in heterosexual marriages there's no obligation for the woman to change her name. There are even cases where the husband takes on the wife's surname.

Presumably they have a discussion about it. Ya know, the same way they pick out the flowers, sort out the seating plan and the other associated things that need to be done before - as Beyonce would say "putting a ring on it".

Or they could even make a hyphenated surname. I know lots of people who have done that.

kittyking
Jul 30th, 2012, 11:57 AM
In a gay marriage, do couples ever take the last name of their partner? If so, how do they decide which name to take?

There's no real set rule about it, it's up to the couple

Sammo
Jul 30th, 2012, 12:03 PM
Yes, I don't support gays adopting children though.

kittyking
Jul 30th, 2012, 12:04 PM
Yes, I don't support gays adopting children though.

Explain please

In my opinion, the vast majority of gay couples who wish to adopt would make as good, if not better parents than your average ones. Theres millions of unloved children worldwide, wouldn't they be better in a loving home?

KeysisGOAT
Jul 30th, 2012, 12:21 PM
Yes, I don't support gays adopting children though.

Why? What makes a gay couple inherently worse at parenting than a 16 yearold single mum? Nothing at all.

Sammo
Jul 30th, 2012, 12:39 PM
I think that the figure of both a father and a mother is very important, especially the mother, I just don't like the idea of two male homossexuals adopting children sorry.

KeysisGOAT
Jul 30th, 2012, 12:52 PM
I think that the figure of both a father and a mother is very important,

A southwest Ohio couple kept their 12-year-old daughter imprisoned in a basement for nearly a month, bound, unbathed and starved until her ribs were clearly visible through her skin, authorities said. Middletown police discovered the sunken-eyed child on July 3 after an anonymous tip led them to the makeshift dungeon that Shawn Blackston, 40, and Joanna Blackston, 36, had created to "punish" the her... A single, dingy light bulb hung from the ceiling near a grime-covered mattress that served as the girl's bed. The girl told investigators her stepmother bound her wrists with duct tape and also put tape over her mouth and eyes, the newspaper reported. She was fed only cereal and hadn't brushed her teeth in six months because her parents had taken away her toothbrush as punishment, she told investigators.

especially the mother,

The Fairfield County parents charged with confining their 4-year-old daughter in a steel-mesh fenced pen... Russell D. Terry, 34, and Jamie M. Curnell, 32, were charged after deputies responded to a domestic-violence complaint at their house and found the pen used to confine the girl to her bed, Phalen said. Deputies were dispatched to the house at 8721 Lancaster-Thornville Rd. in Pleasantville just after 1 a.m. on Tuesday after Terry called and said that Curnell, his girlfriend and mother of his two children, had argued with him and had tried to choke him with an extension cord. She was angry with him because he had been out drinking.

I just don't like the idea of two male homossexuals adopting children sorry.

A Cambridge University developmental psychologist testified at a federal trial in San Francisco today that broad research has documented that children of same-sex parents are just as likely as those of heterosexual parents to be well-adjusted.

"Studies have found children do not require both a male and female parent," testified Michael Lamb, who heads Cambridge's Department of Social and Developmental Psychology.

Lamb was called by lawyers for two same-sex couples who are challenging Proposition 8 as a violation of federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. Proposition 8, approved by 52.3% of voters in 2008, amended the California constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

He said childhood adjustment is determined by the relationships parents have with children and their relationships to each other.

Lamb also said that studies show "no significant increase" in the proportion of children who become gay and lesbian when they are raised by same-sex couples rather than heterosexuals.

Children of same-sex couples are more vulnerable than their counterparts to be teased about their parents, but not more likely to be teased overall, he said. Lamb also said that children of gays and lesbians have fewer sexual stereotypes than children of heterosexuals.

Yeah. If you can accept that homosexuals can love eachother in an equal way as heterosexuals, why the fuck would they love their kids any less.

Grow the fuck up.

Sammo
Jul 30th, 2012, 01:20 PM
:facepalm: Those are pathetic examples, we're talking about fucking normal people here. Don't come up with the 'horrible parents' argument please

KeysisGOAT
Jul 30th, 2012, 01:29 PM
:facepalm: Those are pathetic examples, we're talking about fucking normal people here. Don't come up with the 'horrible parents' argument please

And the fact that there's no evidence that "normal" heterosexual parents are any better at parenting than "normal" homosexual parents? The point I was making is that straight parents aren't inherently better than gay parents. I repeat:

A Cambridge University developmental psychologist testified at a federal trial in San Francisco today that broad research has documented that children of same-sex parents are just as likely as those of heterosexual parents to be well-adjusted.

"Studies have found children do not require both a male and female parent," testified Michael Lamb, who heads Cambridge's Department of Social and Developmental Psychology.

Lamb was called by lawyers for two same-sex couples who are challenging Proposition 8 as a violation of federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. Proposition 8, approved by 52.3% of voters in 2008, amended the California constitution to ban same-sex marriage.

He said childhood adjustment is determined by the relationships parents have with children and their relationships to each other.

Lamb also said that studies show "no significant increase" in the proportion of children who become gay and lesbian when they are raised by same-sex couples rather than heterosexuals.

Children of same-sex couples are more vulnerable than their counterparts to be teased about their parents, but not more likely to be teased overall, he said. Lamb also said that children of gays and lesbians have fewer sexual stereotypes than children of heterosexuals.

AliceMariaRenka
Jul 30th, 2012, 02:38 PM
Yes. Who is anyone to say 2 people shouldn't marry? 2 people in love is concrete, religion isn't.

Moveyourfeet
Jul 30th, 2012, 03:39 PM
I'm pleasantly surprised that there are posters at TF who don't support it.

Why are you pleasantly surprised?

I think that the figure of both a father and a mother is very important, especially the mother, I just don't like the idea of two male homossexuals adopting children sorry.

Unfortunately, this is a pervading attitude most people have on a various number of subjects. "I just don't like..." They can't explain to you logically why they feel that way and unfortunately evidence does little to change their stubborn minds.

We need better science education at younger ages.

debby
Jul 30th, 2012, 04:05 PM
:facepalm: Those are pathetic examples, we're talking about fucking normal people here. Don't come up with the 'horrible parents' argument please

Normal? What is the norm? Seriously...

also I totally agree with Kotre. You know... What would really bother me is that gay people would have the right to adopt kids but they don't do anything to make the procedure of adoption easier for sterile couples ? That would be fucked up. The whole adoption procedure is so hard, no matter the sexuality is. But that's another debate.

Back to gay couples, I don't know how that argument is valid. Maybe 50+ years ago. Not anymore as you can get a divorce quite easily and the full custody of kids. Many single moms bring up their kids, and no one is yelling at them for that. Also... Many parents, unlike you may think, are not better that homosexual couples at raising kids... not at all... my point is ... why would straight parents have the right to have kids even if they don't want them or dislike them but not gay people adopt them???? Have you thought of the many orphan, beaten up and such kids who would be happy because a couple, no matter if it's 1man/1woman or 2 women or 2men, accepted to adopt them?

kittyking
Jul 31st, 2012, 02:41 AM
I think that the figure of both a father and a mother is very important, especially the mother, I just don't like the idea of two male homossexuals adopting children sorry.

Sammo, firstly I'd just like to say I respect your opinion

However I completely disagree with this post. The reality is there are many millions of kids who are brought up with only one parent. I have no problems with families with parent (me and my sister were brought up solely by my mum), however a lot of single parents are unfit to look after kids. Also look at how many kids are abused by their parents/caregivers. How can you say that a homosexual parent is worse for the kid, than a heterosexual parent who does not love or worse abuses their little angel.

Towanda
Jul 31st, 2012, 05:48 AM
Sammo, firstly I'd just like to say I respect your opinion

However I completely disagree with this post. The reality is there are many millions of kids who are brought up with only one parent. I have no problems with families with parent (me and my sister were brought up solely by my mum), however a lot of single parents are unfit to look after kids. Also look at how many kids are abused by their parents/caregivers. How can you say that a homosexual parent is worse for the kid, than a heterosexual parent who does not love or worse abuses their little angel.


Yep, a lot of single parents are not fit to raise kids. I have many gay friends that have adopted, and they are the best parents that I have seen. Most recently, a lesbian couple that I am good friends with adopted a new born girl whose mother already had 7 children, and she was only 25 years old. She didn't want the 8th baby because her state aid, which increases for every child, doesn't increase after the 7th child. This girl didn't even know who the fathers were for a few of her kids. There is no way I will ever believe that this baby would be in a better situation with her birth mother, or anyone else for that matter.

I know other gay couples, including gay men, and they are wonderful parents. I think when you have to fight so hard to adopt, you make sure that you are prepared for it, and you try to be the best parent you can possibly be. I think that probably applies to heterosexual parents who adopt as well, but for gays, based on my experience, it takes much longer for them to adopt than it does heterosexuals.

Towanda
Jul 31st, 2012, 06:40 AM
I think that the figure of both a father and a mother is very important, especially the mother, I just don't like the idea of two male homossexuals adopting children sorry.


First of all, with a divorce rate well over 50%, at least here in the U.S., many kids are not being raised by a mother and a father.

Secondly, we are not in the 1950's anymore, and people are not that locked into gender roles wherein mom is the nurturer who stays home and cares for the kids, cooks, cleans, and does the laundry, while dad goes to work to support the family. A large percentage of moms work, and both parents take a role in raising the kids. So, why should it matter that two parents include both a man and a woman?

I would think it more important that two parents love each other, love their child(ren), try to set an example of how to be a good person, and are supportive of each other and their child(ren). There is nothing inherent about heterosexuals that make them possess those attributes, and there is nothing inherent about gays that makes them not possess those attributes.

I think you've got some idea in your head as to what gays are like, and that idea is all based on stereotypes that are not even true. A much greater percentage of my gay friends are in long-term, committed relationships as compared to my heterosexual friends.

Someone on this thread brought up examples of situations in which gays would make better parents, and you replied that "we're talking about 'normal people' here." Gays are as normal as heterosexuals when it comes the the attributes that would make someone a good parent; the only difference is whom they are attracted to and whom they fall in love with. Whatever someones sexual orientation is, there are some people who are fucked up and some who are responsible, decent people. Sexual orientation doesn't determine that.

Whether you want to accept the examples or not, there are heterosexuals who are horrible parents, and there are gays who are great parents. I have lesbian friends who take care of aids babies that were born to heterosexual drug-addicted mothers. I also know a gay male couple who have two children that were born to crack-heads. And you know what? None of the good heterosexuals that were looking to adopt wanted those babies. I am sure you will bring up again that that is "not normal," but it is reality. Not every heterosexual mom and dad are Ozzie and Harriet, and gay people do not match sterotypes any more than heterosexuals do.

That said, I can accept that it is your opinion that you don't think that gays should be able to adopt children. My problem is when people like you think that their opinions should form the basis of law. I personally don't like it that people who are too stupid to look at legitimate scientific research, but rather rely on their religion and/or their prejudices when forming opinions, are allowed to vote. But I don't attempt to have my opinion influence legislation.

Talula
Aug 1st, 2012, 10:04 AM
I don't understand why this bothers anyone. Why would anyone want to ban 2 people having a legal union? Would those that do rather people pretended not to be gay and married people of the opposite sex? That makes for a happy society - NOT! I don't understand other women who would want a man to marry her when he doesn't really love her. It always dumbfounds me!

OoohBarracuda
Aug 2nd, 2012, 01:32 AM
Of course I do. There are a lot of very well-written and articulated responses supporting gay marriage and I applaud you all for explaining them so well. It's a shame really that people have to spend time explaining because I don't really think it should be up for debate. Unfortunately, I could never express my thoughts and feelings so eloquently, so I will say this: in the words of Wanda Sykes, if you don't believe in same sex marriage, then don't marry somebody of the same sex.

Cajka
Aug 2nd, 2012, 03:44 AM
I don't understand other women who would want a man to marry her when he doesn't really love her. It always dumbfounds me!

From my experience, women usually support gay rights more than men. I don't know if women are generally less homophobic.


And about the whole discussion about children adoption. It's really all clear to me. There are children without parents, there are couples (gay or straight, who cares) who want to have children, but they can't. Why would anyone have anything against making those children and couples happy? There's no logical reason for people to think that gay people would be bad parents. The only issue could be homophobic society. That's why it's necessary to educate the people who have some issues. People are usually "scared" of the things they don't know much about. We shouldn't be judgemental to those people, the most important thing is to find a solution and the education seems to be the best way. So, it's necessary to have the support from governments of the countries with high level of homophobia, support from the people of big influence in general.

delicatecutter
Aug 2nd, 2012, 03:49 AM
I always wish I could have been adopted.

Kworb
Aug 2nd, 2012, 03:51 AM
http://michaeldimotta.tumblr.com/post/3664445456/an-illustration-i-did-for-instinct-magazine-on

Stamp Paid
Aug 2nd, 2012, 04:05 AM
But of course. I want somebody at home waiting on me goddammit.

Talula
Aug 2nd, 2012, 08:52 AM
I always wish I ccould have been adopted.

:lol: I have sometimes wondered what the numbers would be if children could divorce their parents and then choose their Guardians. I think it's a piece of legislation waiting to happen.

kittyking
Aug 16th, 2012, 11:18 AM
:lol: I have sometimes wondered what the numbers would be if children could divorce their parents and then choose their Guardians. I think it's a piece of legislation waiting to happen.

:lol:

nevetssllim
Aug 16th, 2012, 11:30 AM
I think that the figure of both a father and a mother is very important, especially the mother, I just don't like the idea of two male homossexuals adopting children sorry.

I grew up perfectly fine despite not living with my mother since I was 4-5yo. :shrug:

BARBIE
Aug 16th, 2012, 06:02 PM
Yes, I do :)



Just look at who my favourite player is in my avatar/banner :shrug: So how can I not support it ??? :lol: :p

égalité
Aug 16th, 2012, 07:02 PM
I think that the figure of both a father and a mother is very important, especially the mother, I just don't like the idea of two male homossexuals adopting children sorry.

You're allowed not to like it. I don't think your personal likes and dislikes are valid bases for laws, however. :lol:

Ryan
Aug 16th, 2012, 07:15 PM
You're allowed not to like it. I don't think your personal likes and dislikes are valid bases for laws, however. :lol:


Exactly. I don't think stupid, uneducated people should be allowed to have kids...but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. :lol:

Onslow
Aug 16th, 2012, 08:33 PM
You're allowed not to like it. I don't think your personal likes and dislikes are valid bases for laws, however. :lol:

the simple truth is that society sees women as better parents than men. that's why gay adoption law would simply result more discrimination against men. in adoption or custody cases, lesbians couples and single women would (still) be favored over gay/straight men, no matter what the law says. this is why the most equal law is a law that starts from child's right to both biological parents.

spermbanks and womb renting should be illegal.

Rollo
Aug 16th, 2012, 08:37 PM
Yes. If two people love each other and want the state to recognize it then they should be allowed to do so. And they should be allowed to call it a "marriage"-period.

Having said that I also support the right of religious groups to marry (or not marry) whomever they choose to.

We'll see if Maryland becomes the first state this november to actually vote to make gay marriage legal rather than have it legislated.

kittyking
Aug 16th, 2012, 11:11 PM
Exactly. I don't think stupid, uneducated people should be allowed to have kids...but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. :lol:

Exactly I could name plenty of people around my age who are stupid, barely above retarded iq and are having kids

Olórin
Aug 17th, 2012, 01:40 PM
I think that the figure of both a father and a mother is very important, especially the mother, I just don't like the idea of two male homossexuals adopting children sorry.

Very important does not equal essential, and there are many ways of having a mother figure without having a physical mother around. Many children have mothers physically around who don't act as good mother figures.

So I find the second part of your statement to be something of logical non-sequitur and based in your own cultural prejudices rather than good social reasoning.

The Dawntreader
Aug 17th, 2012, 01:49 PM
Very important does not equal essential, and there are many ways of having a mother figure without having a physical mother around. Many children have mothers physically around who don't act as good mother figures.

So I find the second part of your statement to be something of logical non-sequitur and based in your own cultural prejudices rather than good social reasoning.

I agree. I think humans as a species have the intelligence to understand that nature isn't always a pre-requisite for a functional family unit. From what I've heard/seen, gay fathers and gay mothers can carry out the same nuclear role.

The natural physical demands that a child needs from a mother aren't necessarily essential, but that's not to say I'm undermining the importance of the maternal influence.

Dave.
Aug 17th, 2012, 04:51 PM
Why? What makes a gay couple inherently worse at parenting than a 16 yearold single mum? Nothing at all.

You don't need to pick on single mums to make your point.

What makes the average gay couple inherently worse than the average straight couple at parenting? Nothing at all.

KeysisGOAT
Aug 17th, 2012, 07:29 PM
You don't need to pick on single mums to make your point.

What makes the average gay couple inherently worse than the average straight couple at parenting? Nothing at all.

Because comparing a heterosexual couple with a child to a homosexual couple with a child wouldn't prove my point. If lacking one of the "very important" parental figures is what makes homosexuals unsuitable parents then surely a 16 yearold single parent is an equally, if not more disagreeable prospect.

kittyking
Feb 2nd, 2013, 09:48 AM
The bill passed its first reading last year, and has been going through public consultations. Very hopeful that it will be passed by the end of this year or early next year :)

Londoner
Feb 2nd, 2013, 11:11 AM
Yes.

I think it's a crime against humanity to stop other people, or try and stop other people, from trying to find happiness through love.

*JR*
Feb 2nd, 2013, 09:01 PM
IMO, being of the same gender is not properly some "unique disqalifying factor". As the child of a longterm but essentially loveless heterosexual marriage, I can say that there'd properly be other reasons to prohibit a marriage, or for a government to order one dissolved. (Maybe all marriages should need 2B renewed every 10 years or so). :shrug:

And I'd guess that parents who are heavy smokers (and-or drunks) can damage kids more than another couple free of those vices, who happen 2B of the same gender. I also have no specific objection to group marriages among consenting adults, FWIW. And a traditional nuclear family is not necessarily the best place for a child.

But the LA mall owner who banned Manny Pacquiao (http://www.tennisforum.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=21911332) for being intolerant on this is being quite intolerant himself (like the politicians who wanted to ban Chik-Fil-A from opening in their cities last year). Again re. the last point, I'm all for the right to voluntarily boycott CFA, or any other business ppl find morally objectionable.

FWIW, I haven't voted (and won't vote) in this poll, because it implies a greater role for government in what a relationship is defined as than I think is proper. :shrug: Things like next-of-kin status could be determined in other ways.

kittyking
Feb 3rd, 2013, 04:04 AM
IMO, being of the same gender is not properly some "unique disqalifying factor". As the child of a longterm but essentially loveless heterosexual marriage, I can say that there'd properly be other reasons to prohibit a marriage, or for a government to order one dissolved. (Maybe all marriages should need 2B renewed every 10 years or so). :shrug:

And I'd guess that parents who are heavy smokers (and-or drunks) can damage kids more than another couple free of those vices, who happen 2B of the same gender. I also have no specific objection to group marriages among consenting adults, FWIW. And a traditional nuclear family is not necessarily the best place for a child.

But the LA mall owner who banned Manny Pacquiao (http://www.tennisforum.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=21911332) for being intolerant on this is being quite intolerant himself (like the politicians who wanted to ban Chik-Fil-A from opening in their cities last year). Again re. the last point, I'm all for the right to voluntarily boycott CFA, or any other business ppl find morally objectionable.

FWIW, I haven't voted (and won't vote) in this poll, because it implies a greater role for government in what a relationship is defined as than I think is proper. :shrug: Things like next-of-kin status could be determined in other ways.

Without meaning to go off topic, I think that the idea of group marriage is quite different to same sex marriage. Same sex marriage still involves two people in a committed relationship, the only different to a male-female relationship is well... science (similar genitalia)

NashaMasha
Feb 3rd, 2013, 03:41 PM
there is no sane reasons not to allow two people register their relations, moreover it will settle up all this problems with inheritance etc....

BUT, adoption of children should be allowed only to heterosexual pairs, because children should have mother and father and not parent1/parent2. WHY? because no second father can substitute mother and vice versa . (ready to get a huge number of Bad Reps from those whose opinion is "the only one which is always right")

already got one from CanIGetAWhat , will continue counting )))

debby
Feb 3rd, 2013, 04:11 PM
What about these orphan kids ?
These single moms/dads raising their kid?
Step family and no bounds with the father/mother who is gone ? etc etc

NashaMasha
Feb 3rd, 2013, 04:23 PM
What about these orphan kids ?
These single moms/dads raising their kid?
Step family and no bounds with the father/mother who is gone ? etc etc


these are great problems of contemporary world , why should government make the matter worse? My mother had stepfather , it's different situation ... i don't think she would have liked to have second mother instead of stepfather ....

my first word in my life was "Мама" (mother) .... not "Parent number 1" , i think yours too

debby
Feb 3rd, 2013, 04:45 PM
these are great problems of contemporary world , why should government make the matter worse? My mother had stepfather , it's different situation ... i don't think she would have liked to have second mother instead of stepfather ....

my first word in my life was "Мама" (mother) .... not "Parent number 1" , i think yours too

No, they would just call them "dad" and "dad" or "mom" "mommy".. :shrug:
What about these parents who beat up their kids ? that's not a problem of our current world as it has always existed. Really, as long as a family provides some love and care and all to the kids, where is the problem? they will have maternal and/or paternal figures in their entourage so :shrug:

shap_half
Feb 3rd, 2013, 05:05 PM
these are great problems of contemporary world , why should government make the matter worse? My mother had stepfather , it's different situation ... i don't think she would have liked to have second mother instead of stepfather ....

my first word in my life was "Мама" (mother) .... not "Parent number 1" , i think yours too

No, I would hope that your mother would have preferred a life that is happy no matter who raised her.

You are out of control, and obviously a hateful idiot. If two loving people are committed to providing a home to a child who doesn't have one, the government - and narrow-minded people like yourself - shouldn't get in the way of that. Apparently for all the bullshit you spew about how a mother-father family is best for children, you have not thought at all about what you rob other children who are being offered homes by same-sex couples.

Ferg
Feb 3rd, 2013, 05:06 PM
If Tomas would take your closeted ass you'd be out campaigning for gay marriage right now.

:spit:

NashaMasha
Feb 3rd, 2013, 06:24 PM
No, I would hope that your mother would have preferred a life that is happy no matter who raised her.

You are out of control, and obviously a hateful idiot. If two loving people are committed to providing a home to a child who doesn't have one, the government - and narrow-minded people like yourself - shouldn't get in the way of that. Apparently for all the bullshit you spew about how a mother-father family is best for children, you have not thought at all about what you rob other children who are being offered homes by same-sex couples.

go and ask 4 y,o children in the orphanage about who are they waiting for ? do you really think they want father + father? I'm sure they are dreaming about the mother which will very soon pick them up, it's natural. Why should government force them get parents of the same sex, why should government force these children be deprived of having mother ever? Just to give them better conditions and a roof for living?

dybbuk
Feb 3rd, 2013, 06:36 PM
go and ask 4 y,o children in the orphanage about who are they waiting for ? do you really think they want father + father? I'm sure they are dreaming about the mother which will very soon pick them up, it's natural.

Possibly, because society has pushed images of the "ideal" "nuclear family" at every turn (Though if you told a little orphan that his parents will be two women or two men he would not be disgusted and refuse, he would be happy to finally have a family). But logically that's not good enough of a reason to deny gay couples from adopting. JUST LIKE IN THE OTHER THREAD you have no scientific basis for your claims. Because every scientific study done on same-sex parents has found that the children of same-sex parents are just as happy and well-adjusted as children of opposite-sex parents. And actually, if I recall, one actually found that children of two women are MORE adjusted and happy on average than children of any other parents. But I know this was a waste of a post, because scientific studies aren't going to convince you of anything. It just "feels wrong" to you so all the many, many scientists, behavioral specialists and child psychologists in the world that agree with me won't make you budge an inch. And that is where, thankfully, most Western governments are moving towards a logical approach towards gay rights, and not an approach based on whether random straight people "feel" that gays should be equal.

And again, if you told a 4 year old his parents are going to be two women or two men you are LYING if you are trying to say he or she would refuse. Orphans want loving families, they aren't going to thumb their noses at a chance. Because, guess what: homophobia is a learned trait. A 4 year old doesn't think gays are strange or gross.

Novichok
Feb 3rd, 2013, 06:37 PM
go and ask 4 y,o children in the orphanage about who are they waiting for ? do you really think they want father + father? I'm sure they are dreaming about the mother which will very soon pick them up, it's natural. Why should government force them get parents of the same sex, why should government force these children be deprived of having mother ever? Just to give them better conditions and a roof for living?

What do you think a 4 y.o. child in an orphanage would choose: staying there indefinitely or being adopted (regardless of the gender of the parents)?

shap_half
Feb 3rd, 2013, 06:39 PM
go and ask 4 y,o children in the orphanage about who are they waiting for ? do you really think they want father + father? I'm sure they are dreaming about the mother which will very soon pick them up, it's natural. Why should government force them get parents of the same sex, why should government force these children be deprived of having mother ever? Just to give them better conditions and a roof for living?

No, it's not natural, it's social. They've been taught to think that an ideal family situation involves a mother and a father. But you know what is natural for a four year-old, to want a family, any family. If you asked a child if she or he would prefer a family with same-sex parents or no family at all, what do you think that child would say? That's the rub, isn't it, NashaMasha, is that you are more concerned with robbing homeless children of opportunities for homes because you're stuck on a one-dimensional idea of what would constitute a healthy family set-up.

You don't actually have any tangible, natural proof that what you say is right in all cases.

This isn't about doing what's best for children. This is about you and your prejudice.

NashaMasha
Feb 3rd, 2013, 06:50 PM
What do you think a 4 y.o. child in an orphanage would choose: staying there indefinitely or being adopted (regardless of the gender of the parents)?

depends on the age of child and how much is he socially organized . By the way the main problem is adoption of older children . 7-8 y.o children are aware of what is homosexual/heterosexual and may be heavily opposed to anything related to homosexuality....

as for scientifical juiced researches ..... it's always laughable , becuase for 10 positive reasearches can be found 10 negative , when we speak about psychology( not only.... global warming for instance )))

Sergius
Feb 3rd, 2013, 07:00 PM
depends on the age of child and how much is he socially organized . By the way the main problem is adoption of older children . 7-8 y.o children are aware of what is homosexual/heterosexual and may be heavily opposed to anything related to homosexuality....

as for scientifical juiced researches ..... it's always laughable , becuase for 10 positive reasearches can be found 10 negative , when we speak about psychology( not only.... global warming for instance )))

anyone would prefer to be loved and to live with loving parents, and you completely understand that, don't play fool

Stamp Paid
Feb 3rd, 2013, 08:54 PM
No, it's not natural, it's social. They've been taught to think that an ideal family situation involves a mother and a father. But you know what is natural for a four year-old, to want a family, any family. If you asked a child if she or he would prefer a family with same-sex parents or no family at all, what do you think that child would say? That's the rub, isn't it, NashaMasha, is that you are more concerned with robbing homeless children of opportunities for homes because you're stuck on a one-dimensional idea of what would constitute a healthy family set-up.

You don't actually have any tangible, natural proof that what you say is right in all cases.

This isn't about doing what's best for children. This is about you and your prejudice.
Is the social not natural though, being a circumstance of natural environment? I agree with your other points, though. I just think that the natural/social distinction is a bad one.

Novichok
Feb 3rd, 2013, 09:04 PM
Is the social not natural though, being a circumstance of natural environment? I agree with your other points, though. I just think that the natural/social distinction is a bad one.

I thought by natural, he meant "innate".

heavyhorse
Feb 3rd, 2013, 09:18 PM
I do support it just because I don't care about Christianity or even marriage at all. I do understand the argument that marriage was actually a thing invented for a man and a woman - two of the same was not it's purpose and is pointless to the concept etc etc. But it's a free country and banning anyone from doing something purely because of their sexual orientation is wrong in my opinion and a slippery slope. That kind of logic does not support equality and isn't a strong enough reason to BAN people from doing something. Also marriage can be useful for legal purposes too which I believe everyone should be entitled to and nowadays is the only reason people get married in the first place - not to get married in 'the eyes of god' but to secure themselves financially for whatever reason (as well as showing they are in love and will be loyal etc).

DemWilliamsGulls
Feb 3rd, 2013, 10:32 PM
At first I only support gay unions because the bible says marriage is between a woman and a man. But then I had to rethink, I don't believe every single thing in the bible. (homosexuality as a negativity in particular) so ...i've always felt that Love is love no matter what sex so...if you want to marry the person you love.....DO IT. I doubt I ever marry a man, but I know if I ever find the man I love like that, I would want to have that option.

shap_half
Feb 3rd, 2013, 11:00 PM
Is the social not natural though, being a circumstance of natural environment? I agree with your other points, though. I just think that the natural/social distinction is a bad one.

I suppose in this case what's natural has been built through social development. As in, the preferred family construction for generation has been a mom and a dad. So, for sure, when you've been indoctrinated to idealized that set-up, it's only natural that you'll want that, because you've never been exposed to the alternative. But you're not born wanting heterosexual parents. You need a sperm and an egg to make life; nothing out there says that in order for a child to develop into a well-adjusted, happy person, that the owners of that egg and sperm have to raise that child. People think that that's what you need because they've been fed that ideology.

heavyhorse
Feb 3rd, 2013, 11:54 PM
Gay parents isn't a problem. People say that it is because the child might get bullied at school but if more and more gays start to adopt then a social evolution would take place where it will slowly become more and more normal for a kid to have 2 dads or 2 mothers. Then there would be no bullying because it would just seem like a 'norm'.

Stamp Paid
Feb 3rd, 2013, 11:54 PM
I thought by natural, he meant "innate".What do you mean by innate?

I suppose in this case what's natural has been built through social development. As in, the preferred family construction for generation has been a mom and a dad. So, for sure, when you've been indoctrinated to idealized that set-up, it's only natural that you'll want that, because you've never been exposed to the alternative. But you're not born wanting heterosexual parents. You need a sperm and an egg to make life; nothing out there says that in order for a child to develop into a well-adjusted, happy person, that the owners of that egg and sperm have to raise that child. People think that that's what you need because they've been fed that ideology.I agree. Most of us have been indoctrinated by millennia of human experience to see the family in certain particular configurations. As our social circumstances shift and change, so will our perceptions.

NashaMasha
Feb 4th, 2013, 12:03 AM
Gay parents isn't a problem. People say that it is because the child might get bullied at school but if more and more gays start to adopt then a social evolution would take place where it will slowly become more and more normal for a kid to have 2 dads or 2 mothers. Then there would be no bullying because it would just seem like a 'norm'.

gays are about 5% , so it will never be more and more normal.... Being tolerant for adults migh become normal , but children bulling someone who is not like them is what is really "normal"

Stamp Paid
Feb 4th, 2013, 12:17 AM
gays are about 5% , so it will never be more and more normal.... Being tolerant for adults migh become normal , but children bulling someone who is not like them is what is really "normal"

Mixed race children are bullied for having parents of different races. Should interracial marriage be stopped too, for the sake of the children?

Humans are a resilient species. Bullying won't kill them.

Ziggy Starduck
Feb 4th, 2013, 12:21 AM
gays are about 5% , so it will never be more and more normal.... Being tolerant for adults migh become normal , but children bulling someone who is not like them is what is really "normal"

:spit: Really? 5%? Children will bully each other for whatever reason regardless of what their parental makeup is.

Novichok
Feb 4th, 2013, 12:25 AM
What do you mean by innate?

Not learned from experience, i.e., present at birth.

Nicolás89
Feb 4th, 2013, 12:26 AM
The majority of bullied childs are raised by straight parents, shouldn't straight people be forbiden to raise children being the situation like that? I mean that's the logical. :confused:

kittyking
Feb 4th, 2013, 01:09 AM
Mixed race children are bullied for having parents of different races. Should interracial marriage be stopped too, for the sake of the children?

Humans are a resilient species. Bullying won't kill them.

I agree with you, but just to add something else to that. Children are even bullied for having fat or ugly attractive parents. However you shouldn't ban fat/ugly people from having children too.

Proper parenting prevents their children being bullies.

McPie
Feb 4th, 2013, 03:37 AM
well, as a translator, I still waiting to see that one day I might get the gay marriage translation fall into my hands to translated it and legalized at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Thailand ;)


and most of all, I hope some of those translations would come from TennisForum :lol:

ToopsTame
Feb 4th, 2013, 05:41 AM
Lol at the bullying argument. Don't tell us to not adopt kids because they'd be bullied. Raise your kids better so that they don't become bullies.

August
Feb 4th, 2013, 02:57 PM
I really don't care about gay marriages as long as they don't have church weddings.

KeysisGOAT
Feb 4th, 2013, 03:09 PM
Lol at the bullying argument. Don't tell us to not adopt kids because they'd be bullied. Raise your kids better so that they don't become bullies.

Studies have shown that children of gay couples aren't bullied any more frequently than the children of straight couples. They're bullied because of their parents more frequently, but that's indicative of bullies picking something to teas a kid about that they were going to tease anyway. Translation if Bullied Billy wasn't getting bullied because he has two dads he'd be getting bullied because he's fat, or wears glasses, or whatever other reason that gives easy ammunition...

shap_half
Feb 4th, 2013, 03:53 PM
If you didn't have gay parents, you wouldn't be getting bullied. What kind of dumb ass perspective is that? If your parents actually raised you right, you wouldn't be bullying others is more like it.

pov
Feb 4th, 2013, 03:58 PM
In terms of the movement and activism I'm neither for it or against it.My personal opinions is in favor of people being able to have state-sanctioned marriages with whomever they want regardless of gender

McPie
Feb 5th, 2013, 02:55 AM
If you didn't have gay parents, you wouldn't be getting bullied. What kind of dumb ass perspective is that? If your parents actually raised you right, you wouldn't be bullying others is more like it.

I am trying to annoy my parents by wearing boots to work when I having the mood :p and it's fun :oh:

Willam
Feb 5th, 2013, 03:06 AM
Word on the street is there is a new me. Who is this certinfy who pretends to be Tzar circa 2006? :lol::tape:

ys
Feb 5th, 2013, 03:11 AM
I support the concept of civil union with pretty much every legal right that a regular marriage has. I am just against using the same lexical word. I'd leave the "marriage" word to its traditional meaning.

That said, I do not really support the concept of straight marriage either. I do not see why registering your love with state bureaucracy should affect your life in any way.

debby
Feb 5th, 2013, 03:24 AM
Word on the street is there is a new me. Who is this certinfy who pretends to be Tzar circa 2006? :lol::tape:

He.is an awesome dude. Clueless yes but awesome.

Optima
Feb 5th, 2013, 07:08 AM
OFkeKKszXTw

Perfection.

Yes, I do. :)

ViceUltramontain
Feb 12th, 2013, 04:07 PM
Gay marriage got voted by the French National Assembly :cheer:

Gagsquet
Feb 12th, 2013, 04:44 PM
I used to. Now it's way too mainstream.

LoveFifteen
Feb 12th, 2013, 07:43 PM
I used to. Now it's way too mainstream.

Yes, I used to support women's equality and interracial marriage, but now those values are just too conformist and mainstream. :weirdo: :dumbass: :hipsternonsense:

How stupid! Should governments continue to discriminate against gay couples and prevent their happiness just so you can feel more contrarian? :unsure:

ViceUltramontain
Feb 12th, 2013, 07:52 PM
Gagsquet is just trolling. I'm sure he wants to marry his bf someday.

Gagsquet
Feb 12th, 2013, 08:20 PM
Yes, I used to support women's equality and interracial marriage, but now those values are just too conformist and mainstream. :weirdo: :dumbass: :hipsternonsense:

How stupid! Should governments continue to discriminate against gay couples and prevent their happiness just so you can feel more contrarian? :unsure:

:lol:

Sam L
Feb 12th, 2013, 08:37 PM
Gay marriage got voted by the French National Assembly :cheer:

I love your signature. Vive la France! :cheer:

HippityHop
Feb 12th, 2013, 08:55 PM
Without meaning to go off topic, I think that the idea of group marriage is quite different to same sex marriage. Same sex marriage still involves two people in a committed relationship, the only different to a male-female relationship is well... science (similar genitalia)

"I think" being the operative phrase here. How do you decide that two people in a committed relationship should be the only type allowed? What is a good argument against three or four more people in a committed relationship?

Novichok
Feb 13th, 2013, 07:21 AM
"I think" being the operative phrase here. How do you decide that two people in a committed relationship should be the only type allowed? What is a good argument against three or four more people in a committed relationship?

1. It's obvious that group marriage is quite different than a two-person marriage. I don't see how anyone could deny this.

2. There are pragmatic legal issues concerning group marriage. Current law can easily accommodate a two-person same-sex marriage. But if more people are added into the equation, then many laws/benefits would have to be changed.

3. The most cogent argument for same-sex marriage doesn't rely on the truth of the premise that "people should be able to marry whomever they love". It relies on the premises that same-sex marriage (and homosexuality) isn't inherently harmful and denying same-sex marriage rights is denying a group of people (gay people) equal rights. I don't believe that an equal rights argument can be made w.r.t. polygamous marriage.

I do support polygamous marriage. But there seems to be a (widely held) belief that one's support of same-sex marriage commits them to supporting polygamous marriage. That's not at all true.

laschutz
Feb 13th, 2013, 01:54 PM
IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE REALLY:

NO LOVE BETWEEN TWO CONSENTING ADULTS IS WRONG AS LONG AS THEY NOT BETROTHED TO ANOTHER.. (NO, I DON'T MEAN FAMILY MEMBERS!)..i mean it is L-O-V-E!

THE IDEA THAT OTHER CITIZENS HAVE THE SAY IN WHO CAN OR CAN'T GET MARRIED IS RIDICULOUS.. I MEAN IT IS "love"!...

50 to 100 hundred years from now society will look back like they do now on the civil rights and the civil rights movement on gay equality and marriage like " what were those people thinking back in 2013!"...of course in america of all places, everyone should be equal!" DUH!...

swissmr
Feb 13th, 2013, 03:26 PM
Tbh I just laugh at the people who are against gay marriage in England because everyone knows it will happen eventually :lol:
And it won't be long before people look back and laugh disbelievingly at the time when the whole country had to 'decide' whether gay people should be 'allowed' to get married.

semprelibera
Feb 13th, 2013, 03:56 PM
I refuse to believe Hippityhop is so basic as to not understand the slippery slope fallacy, which can only mean he is trolling: 1/10

HippityHop
Feb 13th, 2013, 04:11 PM
1. It's obvious that group marriage is quite different than a two-person marriage. I don't see how anyone could deny this.

2. There are pragmatic legal issues concerning group marriage. Current law can easily accommodate a two-person same-sex marriage. But if more people are added into the equation, then many laws/benefits would have to be changed.

3. The most cogent argument for same-sex marriage doesn't rely on the truth of the premise that "people should be able to marry whomever they love". It relies on the premises that same-sex marriage (and homosexuality) isn't inherently harmful and denying same-sex marriage rights is denying a group of people (gay people) equal rights. I don't believe that an equal rights argument can be made w.r.t. polygamous marriage.

I do support polygamous marriage. But there seems to be a (widely held) belief that one's support of same-sex marriage commits them to supporting polygamous marriage. That's not at all true.

There are many places in the world where there is polygamy and they seem to have no problem with setting their laws to accommodate same.

I'm for anybody getting married who wants to get married and that includes close relatives.

HippityHop
Feb 13th, 2013, 04:14 PM
I refuse to believe Hippityhop is so basic as to not understand the slippery slope fallacy, which can only mean he is trolling: 1/10

I have stated my case. The only way that you can refute my stance on allowing any and all marriages even those between close relatives (brothers and sisters as per ancient Egyptian royalty etc.) is not by anything logical but by your own dislike of it. If you have a logical reason to be against what I said, state it and stop deflecting. Otherwise STFU.

semprelibera
Feb 13th, 2013, 04:48 PM
I have stated my case. The only way that you can refute my stance on allowing any and all marriages even those between close relatives (brothers and sisters as per ancient Egyptian royalty etc.) is not by anything logical but by your own dislike of it. If you have a logical reason to be against what I said, state it and stop deflecting. Otherwise STFU.

SMH at your pleading for logic while using illogical reasoning to bait posters into off-topic arguments.
Aint nobody got time for that.

HippityHop
Feb 13th, 2013, 06:27 PM
SMH at your pleading for logic while using illogical reasoning to bait posters into off-topic arguments.
Aint nobody got time for that.

Not pleading for anything. You're the one who claimed that I was trolling when in fact I argue for as much liberty for as many people as possible as long as that liberty does not hurt anyone else. And until I see someone else's marriage hurting others I'll continue to hold my position.

But let the record show for all to see that you cannot refute one word that I stated. And your claiming that you don't have time for that (though you clearly have time to dance around my argument) doesn't change that fact.

If you can't address the argument why weigh in at all? Just shake your head and keep it moving.

I'm OK with that.

NoppaNoppa
Feb 13th, 2013, 06:48 PM
Yes.

Why? My right wing brain tells that all are FREE to make their own choice :worship:

semprelibera
Feb 14th, 2013, 12:39 AM
Not pleading for anything. You're the one who claimed that I was trolling when in fact I argue for as much liberty for as many people as possible as long as that liberty does not hurt anyone else. And until I see someone else's marriage hurting others I'll continue to hold my position.

But let the record show for all to see that you cannot refute one word that I stated. And your claiming that you don't have time for that (though you clearly have time to dance around my argument) doesn't change that fact.

If you can't address the argument why weigh in at all? Just shake your head and keep it moving.

I'm OK with that.

"let the record show"... someone takes themselves too seriously
I will be happy to discuss gay marriage with you. What I will not do is indulge your lazy slippery slope trolling, talking about incest and polygamy
Peace.

KournikovaFan91
Feb 14th, 2013, 12:43 AM
Personally I'd like the abolition of all civil marriage and individuals could draw up their own unique marital contract with lawyers that wouldn't be state regulated but since that will NEVER happen then yes I'm for gay marriage. :yeah:

Marriage is merely a legally binding document between two people, frankly whether you're in love or not is irrelevant and whether you can both pro-create is irrelevant.

Frankly I'm amazed excluding two people of the same gender from this contract hasn't been interpreted as gender discrimination anywhere in the world because that's what it seems to be.

HippityHop
Feb 14th, 2013, 01:19 AM
"let the record show"... someone takes themselves too seriously
I will be happy to discuss gay marriage with you. What I will not do is indulge your lazy slippery slope trolling, talking about incest and polygamy
Peace.

I'm not making a slippery slope argument. You clearly don't know what a slippery slope argument is so let me explain it to you. That sort of argument says that if we allow gay marriage it will lead to polygamy etc. That is not my argument. In fact I'm not even making an argument. I am stating my position which is that anyone who wants to marry in any configurarion should be free to do so. And if that's not clear to you that also includes two or more gay people getting married. Therefore there is nothing to discuss concerning gay marriage from my point of view. I'm for it.

Now if you object to my support of other types of marriage, that's fine. But be honest and say that you believe that people should only be free to engage in what you agree with and not to engage in what you don't agree with.

Now if you can show me how someone else's marriage does harm to others I'm perfectly willing to reconsider my position.