Should Gays be allowed to marry?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 22 2002 @ 07:55 AM
link   
If you close it, all the local kids wont have a place to play anymore.




posted on Nov, 22 2002 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lupe_101
exactly how many times did your mum drop you on your head U.P.


Less than you !




Originally posted by quiet one

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

2) if you can convince me that non-heterosexuals are somehow deficient in their child-care skills i might just support your view.

3) 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.



1) You know the answer. Kids need a father & a mother, not 2 mothers or 2 fathers. They need them for their mental stability.

2) See point 1.


3) How do you want to call them ?


A cat is a cat, a dog is a dog, a Jap is a Jap, a Yank is a Yank and a gay is a gay.

You & your fuc%$ political correctness.



Originally posted by William
Can anyone convince me why this thread should continue?


Well, when someone ask me something, I give him an answer.



posted on Nov, 22 2002 @ 09:37 AM
link   
"Can anyone convince me why this thread should continue?"

can you convince us why on earth you should need to be convinced about the continuence of a relevant cultural topic people are happily discussing?

please try and post on topic.



posted on Nov, 22 2002 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Originally posted by Lupe_101:

"please try and post on topic."

lmfao .... ouch.


- qo.



posted on Nov, 22 2002 @ 09:45 AM
link   
Originally posted by ultra_phoenix:

") You know the answer. Kids need a father & a mother, not 2 mothers or 2 fathers. They need them for their mental stability.

2) See point 1.
"

you need a mother and a father for mental stability? well that's a nice "# you" to every child ever raised by a single parent. nicely done. any single-parents or people raised by single parents want to give UP a big slap?

kids do not need a mother and a father for mental stability. i entirely agree that it is generally better to have two people raising a child, if only because that way one can work whilst the other dedicates their time to the children. however, there is no reason why a same-sex couple could not do this.

so, once again, why is it wrong to let gay people raise children?

"3) How do you want to call them ?


A cat is a cat, a dog is a dog, a Jap is a Jap, a Yank is a Yank and a gay is a gay.

You & your fuc%$ political correctness.
"

well, maybe it is political correctness. maybe its being polite. maybe its not de-humanising non-heterosexuals and demonising them. gay people are gay PEOPLE. by calling them "gays" it is easy to strip that fact from them.

a cat is a cat.
a dog is a dog.
a "gay" is a person.

- qo.


[Edited on 22-11-2002 by quiet one]



posted on Nov, 22 2002 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lupe_101
can you convince us why on earth you should need to be convinced about the continuence of a relevant cultural topic people are happily discussing?



I'm concerned about the tone the thread is adopting, not the topic.



posted on Nov, 22 2002 @ 09:57 AM
link   
we're having a healthy discussion of the topic at hand. no problems here, officer ....

*hides kipper behind his back and smiles uneasily*

- qo.



posted on Nov, 22 2002 @ 10:23 AM
link   
fine.

I'll consider you convinced then.

seeya.

right back to the topic at hand.



posted on Nov, 22 2002 @ 10:32 AM
link   
U.P. your on crack:

"1) You know the answer. Kids need a father & a mother, not 2 mothers or 2 fathers. They need them for their mental stability. "

No we don't know the answer many of us don't consider that to be an answer, indeed I know of no conclusive developmental articles that prove that children need both a male and female blood relative in order to grow normatively.

there are many schools of thought and theories, including that the children of same sex marriages will find non relative gender role modles, that children do not need both gender models in order to become actualised and indeed that parents have no role in the upbringing of children.

please stop arguing through assumed truths. go read some psychology texts and you'll see that developmental psychology is a pretty big topic. don't state your bigoted "opinions" as fact, they are simply based on your aversion to homosexuality.

"3) How do you want to call them ?

A cat is a cat, a dog is a dog, a Jap is a Jap, a Yank is a Yank and a gay is a gay. "

The currently accepted term in London is queer.
god knows what it is where you come from U.P. what I do know is that what a word means does not determine its apropriateness its how you use it.

as we can plainly see from the use of 'n-word' in black culture and queer in homosexual culture.

In your case you are using a perfectly acceptable word as a tool of denogration and I think you should either stop or learn how to use it without being insulting.



posted on Nov, 22 2002 @ 10:58 AM
link   
Childrens, in most of the case, are doing like their parents. That's why I think they need a father & a mother.

And if you want to know it, I have been raised by my grands-parents, until my 11 birthday and when I was 17 years old my father left home.

Anyway our morals values are vanishing. This world is collapsing. No moral values = no civilisation. Remember the Roman Empire !



posted on Nov, 22 2002 @ 11:19 AM
link   
Originally posted by ultra_phoenix:

"Childrens, in most of the case, are doing like their parents. That's why I think they need a father & a mother."

why does that make a difference for gay couples? or, indeed, lesbian couples? i know of plenty of heterosexual couples that act appallingly around their children, and indeed those children often grow up to be little sh!ts themselves. however, i do not see this particular trend with sexuality.

"And if you want to know it, I have been raised by my grands-parents, until my 11 birthday and when I was 17 years old my father left home."

and this doesn't make you biased or short-sighted on the subject at all?

"Anyway our morals values are vanishing. This world is collapsing. No moral values = no civilisation. Remember the Roman Empire !
"

prove that our morals are vanishing. perhaps with reference to studies and such. i'd say that our morals are not vanishing. they are changing in some ways, but that is not a bad thing. after all, not that long ago it was perfectly acceptable to keep slaves and whip your child in the street if they were naughty. thankfully those morals change. i think that the conservative moral of homophobia is due a change, and hopefully it will happen soon.

- qo.



posted on Nov, 22 2002 @ 11:25 AM
link   
Originally posted by ultra_phoenix:

"Childrens, in most of the case, are doing like their parents.... Anyway our morals values are vanishing."

another thought. we asked you to explain and indeed prove that non-heterosexual parents are somehow deficient in the child-care skills. all you've come up with is "our morals are vanishing". in which case, you are argueing that non-heterosexual parents will degrade or somehow not instil moral values upon their children. personally i think this is a load of twaddle.

to illustrate i'll run a thought experiment. since the only differences between our theoretical heterosexual parents and non-heterosexual parents are:
a) one couple is of the same sex, the other has both
b) the couples have differing sexual orientation
you therefore imply that gender or sexuality is somehow tied to your moral outlook. essentially you are either saying that men or women (men, since this started from a discussion of gay people) do not have and cannot teach moral values. i think this is plainly bollocks. alternatively, non-heterosexuality is somehow incompatible with a sound moral compass.

this i think is your real arguement, and frankly its out-dated, narrow-minded, biggoted, and plain wrong. you speak of civilisation; your views go against everything that i consider part of an enlightened civilisation.

- qo.



posted on Nov, 23 2002 @ 11:25 AM
link   
well seriously i have no problem with gays
if that their decision then let it be. I'll respect it
but...
i don't think that they should be allowed to marry in the catholic church because of the fact that if you are catholic then you believe that god made a man and a woman not a man and a man or a woman and a woman
i mean what's the point you can't have babies that way
so if the whole world was gay then the human race would die

but ....
on the other hand i think that they should be allowed to get married by the civil.
why? because this is a free country and you are entitled to have your opinion and no one can do anything about it that's their personal choice



posted on Nov, 23 2002 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Well, why shouldn't they be allowed to have kids? They are people, who cares who they have sex with? I know a few lesbians, a couple of bi's, even a gay guy. None of them seem to be defficent in morals. They just don't lioke the opposite sex as much as they like the same sex. Who are we to say what they can do with their bodies?



posted on Nov, 24 2002 @ 05:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by quiet one
Originally posted by ultra_phoenix:


1) and this doesn't make you biased or short-sighted on the subject at all?

2) prove that our morals are vanishing. perhaps with reference to studies and such. i'd say that our morals are not vanishing. they are changing in some ways, but that is not a bad thing.

3) i think that the conservative moral of homophobia is due a change, and hopefully it will happen soon.



1) I don't think so.

2) For you, morals values are changing, but for me, they are vanishing.

3) If I was you, I would be more circumspect.


Anyway, homosexuality is an abomination to God Eyes ! All monotheist religions ( Christians, Jews, Mulims ) share the same opinion about this : It's an abomination !

When you're gay or lesbian, you're against God. So, be against Him if you want, it's your choice and I don't care.


This conversation is sterile. We have all an opinion and, all of us, will not change it.


[Edited on 24-11-2002 by ultra_phoenix]



posted on Nov, 24 2002 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Tyler

Originally posted by kim
whats with the homophobe attitude Tyler?


Have you left your brain on your night stand? Maybe you should look at the top of the page where it says SECRET SOCIETIES DISCUSSIONS


TOO RIGHT



posted on Nov, 24 2002 @ 09:33 AM
link   
I have a gay china man in my gym, bugger always trys to slap my ass



posted on Nov, 24 2002 @ 11:15 AM
link   
UP, using religon doesn't work. Montheistic religons are man made. Why do you think they just came out in past 2-4 millenia? While the old ones, around 30-35 millenia say it's ok, just don't hurt anyone? And guess what, those old ones were wiped out by the new ones. And the old ones don't have any religous wars under their belts like the new ones do.

Why is that? The new ones have books, and kill becaus of it. Old ones don't, and they don't kill others. In fact two of them became very good company to the other one. They got along so well they started sharing ideas. But the new ones, nope. It I'm right you wrong, DIE!!!!


So UP, using a religon that goes and kills millions, some maybe billions because they don't share same view is not a good idea. Where were their morals when they burnt people or beheaded them or went to war?

Besides, the Ten commandments don't say "Thou shalt not mate with the same sex" And that is the only thing written by any god, in fact the TC are in almost every religon. Thou shalt not kill, cheat, lie, so forth.



posted on Nov, 24 2002 @ 01:25 PM
link   
the botom line is this..I dont want any one judgeing me and what i do there for i will not judge others..If every one would just follow these guild lines this world would be a much better place

Boomslang



posted on Nov, 24 2002 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by James the Lesser

While the old ones, around 30-35 millenia say it's ok, just don't hurt anyone?



The old ones ? 30-35 milleniums ??? What are you talking about James ?????





new topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join