Should Gays be allowed to marry?

Originally posted by Tyriffic
MTE, your arguement for aberrant behaivour does not make said behaivour a good and wholesome aspect for society.
And, whoever compared dogs and monkeys to people only adds to the CON arguement against!

What about a women that cannot bear children or a man that is sterile? Should they not be allowed to marry? According to your arguement, they can't bring children into this world so they shouldn't be allowed to marry.

I myself may in the near future be marrying a lady who can not bear children. I will feel natural in this regardless.
I also think a few here protest this much too much...

I was just saying that it is not something humans made up. It is in nature.

Yes. I think we humans see animals portraying what we think is 'GAY' behaivour. I just think they are animals. If we are just like animals, we are nowhere as advanced as we think we are.
I mean, do you really think a dog or raccoon sniffs around looking for one another of the same sex just for gratification? And 'love' does not enter into the animal equation.

I don't think that Nature is pure anymore anyways.

Originally posted by Cearbhall
No they shouldn't because thier acts are against nature itself.

Man is of Nature.
Therefore, anything Man does is natural.



Naturally.

quango, man chooses what is natural or not, therefore gay marriages is left up to the majority, if they say no to gay marriages so be it!

As for "natural" it's probably more of a choice with most, they've already mapped out the human genome, it can't be hard to find the "Gay gene". Or flaw...

Originally posted by quango

Originally posted by Cearbhall
No they shouldn't because thier acts are against nature itself.

Man is of Nature.
Therefore, anything Man does is natural.

Naturally.

So, following this logic, if Man chooses to have relations with sheep, this is only Natural?

I think closet gay 'president' George W Bush should be able to dress how he wants, and marry whomever he wants.

The fact that he is in the closet does not affect my established opinion of him one way or the other.

OBSESSION is a compulsive behaivour.

[Edited on 5-8-2003 by Tyriffic]

Originally posted by Tyriffic
OBSESSION is a compulsive behaivour.

[Edited on 5-8-2003 by Tyriffic]

Big T

Well, that seemed to get a bite.

As far as I see it, obsession is the cognitive side of a personality dimension and compulsion is the behavioral side of it; hence in the more troublesome cases the label 'obsessive-compulsive disorder'.

But you were compelled to say what you said, weren't you?

Just as Dubya must have the same compulsion to act out his 'unnatural' tendencies, and to absolve and redeem himself by calling for law reform afterwards.

(I can only quote Colonel and his sources on Bush's homosexual predispositions, I have never had a gay relationship with Bush or anyone myself).

But, as I said, it does not make Dubya any more or less a human being so long as anything he does with his boyfriend is consensual.

Originally posted by Tyriffic

Originally posted by quango

Originally posted by Cearbhall
No they shouldn't because thier acts are against nature itself.

Man is of Nature.
Therefore, anything Man does is natural.

Naturally.

So, following this logic, if Man chooses to have relations with sheep, this is only Natural?

Yep. And it's natural for some people to be repulsed by that, others to not care, and others to run bestiality websites online.


Also, Horse + Donkey = Mule.

I was going to post

"Man + Sheep = Tyriffic"

but that is actually grossly unfair and stupid.


Instead it's

"Man + Sheep = you are in New Zealand" for Australians

and

"Man + Sheep = you are in Australia" for South Africans.

I have never had a gay relationship with Bush or anyone myself).

...and Denial is a river in Africa.

Big T

OK

I have had thoughts of inserting anything large and excruciatingly painful (but not attached to me) into the accustomed orifice of the individual, if that constitutes a gay thought.

I should have realized.

I also see MA that you can't let one of my posts go free without personally attacking me can you?

You were'nt, but you did any way................go figure.

We had this go round last night re:tbats...you are showing again why they started that nonsense.

Qaungo, I suppose this is where the sheeople come in ?

No. I am having fun, no personal attacks intimated or intended.

If your feelings are hurt, I apologize.

But I honestly have never had anything other than the broomstick idea with respect to George W Bush.

And his sexual preference doesn't matter a damn to me.


* Big T - I missed out on the 'go round' re TBATS, and haven't had much to do with this 'movement' except for encouraging its representatives to stay on track with their posts and their personal lives *




[Edited on 5-8-2003 by MaskedAvatar]

Originally posted by FreeMason
quango, man chooses what is natural or not, therefore gay marriages is left up to the majority, if they say no to gay marriages so be it!

As for "natural" it's probably more of a choice with most, they've already mapped out the human genome, it can't be hard to find the "Gay gene". Or flaw...

You're confusing natural for "normal" or "acceptable" or "non-offensive".

I "choose" to own a computer and post at ATS - is this unnatural, because I've "chosen" it?

Originally posted by quantumworlds
Marriage is a religious ceremony let us not forget, religion prohibits gay relationships so in actual fact religiously a gay couple wont be married even if they go through the ceremony.

Hey. Here's another questions, ladies and gentlemen....


Should Atheists be allowed to marry?



tyriffic - sheeple

Atheists...let's not go there but many are the stupidest people I've ever seen, most become atheists when they are 15 or such because they are angry at their parents and are "rebelling"...they have no clue how there has to be a God.

As for you quango, hardly the good source of reason when you think beastiality is "natural".

unnatural things do exist in this world, and while it's extreme to call them such due to its true definition, it could be called evil.

For anything in this world unnatural...is evil. While nature is good.

MA, on this board I have no feelings. Just knee jerks.

Q: I was only following your logic of natural progression

If an Agnostic married an Atheist, who would know?