Should Gays be allowed to marry?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 2 2002 @ 10:17 PM
link   
i'm agianst heterosexual marriage




posted on Nov, 2 2002 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Actually MS they can take the Chromosomes of both parents Male-male//Female-Female male-female whatever...and insert them into an evacuated egg and produce genetic off spring of those two people that way, though I think aside from lengthening life spans, and regrowing lost body parts, genetic research is a crime against nature...and should not be too widely pursued (Shudders at the thought of Clones)


Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Nov, 3 2002 @ 06:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

Originally posted by ultra_phoenixAnd don't forget the childrens. For some of you, it's sound stupid and " retrograde ", but a kid need a mother AND a father. Not 2 fathers or 2 mothers.


??? And precisely *how* can a same-sex marriage produce kids?



We are agree. I wasn't clear in my post ?



posted on Nov, 3 2002 @ 01:24 PM
link   
It is sexual orientation, not sexualpreference. Therefore, gay people should have equal rights, including the right to get married. I am not gay, but the homophobic attitude of many heterosexual people sickens me. It is just as bad as racism, sexism, or religious hate. Homosexuality is a natural thing for about 5% of the population.



posted on Nov, 3 2002 @ 03:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by phunky monkey

Homosexuality is a natural thing for about 5% of the population.



Yes, and pedophilia is a natural thing for about 2.5 % of the population.

Zoophilia is a natural....bla...bla...bla... 1.5%...bla...bla...

Necrophilia is...bla...bla...bla... 0.5%...bla....

and so on.......

Me, I'm sick with all these abnormals things !


[Edited on 3-11-2002 by ultra_phoenix]



posted on Nov, 3 2002 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Um... hate to be a party pooper, but really, this is in the wrong forum and should be moved.
I'll leave it here for a few hours, then I'm gonna move it into the Chit Chat forum.
Sorry again if this breaks up the 'momentum' of the convo, but hey... got a duty to uphold.

*shines Mod Badge with sleeve*



posted on Nov, 3 2002 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Go ahead, I have no idea how it ended up in THAT forum and I thought it odd...



posted on Nov, 3 2002 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by ultra_phoenixMe, I'm sick with all these abnormals things !

And who died & left you with the judgment of what is "normal"? By default, "normal" is defined by general consensus of the society that's debating the subject to be defined.

Considering the differences between you & your family/friends/community, would you consider your presence here at ATS to be "normal"?



posted on Nov, 4 2002 @ 03:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightDStroyer

Considering the differences between you & your family/friends/community, would you consider your presence here at ATS to be "normal"?




Ok MD, I understand what you mean.


In my last post, I didn't try to be homophobe. I just tryed to point that we need some limits with our behaviours.

This " 5% " statement is not a good argument. Otherwise, where is the limit ? Why 5 ? Why not 2% or 0.000000001% ?

Nope, it wasn't a good argument.

Try to find a better one ( not u MD ) , but don't be surpised, I'll find the counter-argument.



[Edited on 4-11-2002 by ultra_phoenix]



posted on Nov, 21 2002 @ 10:26 AM
link   
Ok MD, I understand what you mean.

In my last post, I didn't try to be homophobe. I just tryed to point that we need some limits with our behaviours.

"This " 5% " statement is not a good argument. Otherwise, where is the limit ? Why 5 ? Why not 2% or 0.000000001% ?

Nope, it wasn't a good argument.

Try to find a better one ( not u MD ) , but don't be surpised, I'll find the counter-argument. "

5%? hmmmmm well in England its 10% and as far as I remember america is higher.

regardless this tired old "if you let the queers in why not the peadophiles and dog #@rs as well" hacks me off.

I hear it from every bloody time this topic comes up and its just a stupid argument.

why?

because theres a massive difference between being in a consenting homosexual relationship and abusing a kid / animal.

it trys to equate one thing, with a load of unrelated things in order to demonise.

you might not approve of homosexuals and percieve them as sexual deviants U.P. but that doesn't mean they can be lumped into the same bracket as sexual criminals.

Its like saying

"If you give black people the vote you might as well give it to the terrorists and baby murderers because thats what they'll be demanding next!"

Its a stupid argument based not on rational thought but your own personal predjudices which, btw, are biggoted, small minded and imature.

is there anything wrong with homosexuality ? no
shoul gay couples be allowed to marry in a christian church? no. homosexuality ais fairly explicitly condemmed by the majority of that faith.
does this mean that christianity is a repressive archaic religion that needs to either address its attitude or (and this is my preference) simply die out? damn straight it does.

but regestry or non denominational marriage, sure. whats the problem.



posted on Nov, 21 2002 @ 10:47 AM
link   
lupe sums up what several people have said: marriage has two parts; the lawful and the religious.

i believe that homosexual (bisexuals, etc) should be allowed to marry, at least in law.

as for getting religious recognition of your marriage, well, that's down to the religious people to sort out amongst themselves.

- qo.



posted on Nov, 21 2002 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Originally posted by wetdog:

"its not in the animal world there for it shouldnt be in ours... its not natural and its are fault screwing around with nature acting like god that there are gen-gays anyways..."

this arguement if false, wrong, null and void, and has been shown to be every time this conversation comes up. scientists have recorded homosexuality in dog, monkeys, and other primates. it IS a natural thing, albeit a minority.

- qo.



posted on Nov, 21 2002 @ 10:54 AM
link   
yup, plenty of gay animals. more to the point, wetdog, there are no animals out there who write. Presumably we should give that up as well.



posted on Nov, 21 2002 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Comparing gays to paedophiles is a ignorant at best. Do gays mentally scar each other upon intercourse, no they do not. Do they abuse eachother? no. Do they harm one another (well apart from a sore ass)? no. Whatever they choose to do behind closed doors is their own business, so long as they are not harming anyone.

There is nothing to debate here, how can we decide how others live their lives. It has been found that similar proportions of homosexuality exist in nature, due to (what is thought by a leading expert in the field) due to the way a certain part of the brain develops. Animals have been seen to try to have sex with the same sex, even when animals of the opposite sex are nearby. SO IT IS F*CKING NATURAL!

People of the same sex should be allowed to marry, because quite frankly who the f*ck are we to stop them.



posted on Nov, 21 2002 @ 11:29 AM
link   
I had a gay dog once. He constantly tried to do it with my other male dog...
That was the weirdest dog I ever had. He was also paranoid. Afraid of his own shadow almost...
RIP poor little psychotic puppy...



posted on Nov, 21 2002 @ 03:41 PM
link   
What wrong with being gay/bi? If a person has consensual sex, who cares who they have it with?

Also, with the if allow gays, why not dogman or kidadult marriges? That is like saying if we allow a guy who stole seven dollars from someone who got drunk and passed out at a party out of jail, what next? Mass murderers? Manson? Because taking seven bucks from a drunk and killing people is two completely different things.



posted on Nov, 21 2002 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by quiet one
Originally posted by wetdog:


scientists have recorded homosexuality in dog, monkeys, and other primates. it IS a natural thing, albeit a minority.



Yep, but we aren't dogs or monkeys. We are humans. So, this arguement if false, wrong, null and void, and has been shown to be every time this conversation comes up.



posted on Nov, 21 2002 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Fantastic_Damage, James the Lesser, quiet one,

Gay marriages is the first step. The next step will be : Now that we are married, we want to have kids. And kids allways need a mother AND a father, not 2 fathers or 2 mothers.That's why I say NO to their marriages.

" People of the same sex should be allowed to marry, because quite frankly who the f*ck are we to stop them "

I'm somebody who cares for the childrens.

You are all thinking to the gays, but not to the childrens ! You have all a lack of morality sensitivity. Gay peoples can have sex if they want, it's not our problem. But we have to protect the society and the childrens. So, I say that they can have sex, but they can't have any kids and they can't be allowed to married. Cuz wedding is the first step. When you say " yes" one time, you'll have allways to say the next times.

I'm not surpised that you are gays pro-marriages. When something is good to destroy our society and his values, lefts peoples like you are allways agree !



posted on Nov, 22 2002 @ 07:18 AM
link   
whilst i would love to know the answer to lupe's question i think a better question would be:

UP, why is it wrong to let gay people raise children?

personally - having known several people who are gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and even "formerly-lesbian" (don't ask) - i see no reason why they could not raise a child just as well as a heterosexual couple. if you can convince me that non-heterosexuals are somehow deficient in their child-care skills i might just support your view.

second, i hate the use of the term "gays" to refer to gay people. it like me referring to americans as "yanks", or to japanese people as "nips". its racist, or discriminator and inflamatory at the very least.

- qo.



posted on Nov, 22 2002 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Can anyone convince me why this thread should continue?





new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum