Page 1 of 2
#1
Just wondered what your thoughts on it are, and i just found this and needed an excuse to post it.
hello
#4
Quote by opc100
Just wondered what your thoughts on it are, and i just found this and needed an excuse to post it.


Funny bro...
Quote by jrcsgtpeppers

If women can be annoyed there arent any women incongress I should be allowed to be pissed off there are no members of pink floyd or the beatles in congress.
#5
Quote by powerhead
The way I figure is, if you're opposed to gay marriage, don't marry someone of the same sex.

That is logic at the highest level.

Sigged
hello
#6
I'm all for it. I don't see how you can tell one group of people they can marry and deny the rights of the other group, just because they aren't attracted to the same sex as the majority.

Quote by hazzmatazz
youmakemesmile...

Quote by sebastian_96
Today I stole a girls tampons for being such an annoying bitch.





MUFC


My love for you
Is like a truck
Berserker.
#7
hmmm well i think its your choice who you want to be with....who are we to tell someone not to be with the one they love!
#8
It's nut right I fink.

Adam and Eve NOTZ Adam and STEVE. lulz.
Quote by GLP_Arclite
Pooping is well good though, to be fair.


I've got a handle on the fiction.

I'm losing my grip, 'cos I'm losing my fingers.
#9
I love GraphJam.

Check out Lewis Black on "the queers" destroying the American family. Hilarity.

[IN PHIL WE TRUST]


Quote by Trowzaa
I only play bots. Bots never abandon me. (´・ω・`)

#12
Quote by Zero-Hartman
I'm all for it. I don't see how you can tell one group of people they can marry and deny the rights of the other group, just because they aren't attracted to the same sex as the majority.


Yep, I agree with this.
#13
A bunch of people I know are gay, and it doesn't bother me. As long as they don't go around having sex in front of me(though I'd mind that with a straight couple too), hitting on me or anything of that sort, I'm fine with it. Gay love or straight love, all love is love, and all love is good love.
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 73-78
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 2-0
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 24-7
#14
I recently had a debate with a guy about it on facebook. When I asked why he opposes it, he said that it's because it's not natural. Then I told him about homosexuality in animals and how it IS natural. Then he started talking about god forbidding it. I tell him that government and religion are disconnected, so he starts talking about how the church has a big influence over the Argentinian government. He ended up calling me a homosexual in denial, and not answering the rest of my points .
||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||

#16
Quote by urik
I recently had a debate with a guy about it on facebook. When I asked why he opposes it, he said that it's because it's not natural. Then I told him about homosexuality in animals and how it IS natural. Then he started talking about god forbidding it. I tell him that government and religion are disconnected, so he starts talking about how the church has a big influence over the Argentinian government. He ended up calling me a homosexual in denial, and not answering the rest of my points .


Whenever this arises, I always use the "strong homophobia is linked to repressed homosexual tendencies" argument. They finish by calling me a faggot and walking away
#17
I said that the constitution forbids any kind of discrimination, and not letting gays marry is a form of discrimination, so he answered "If I want to piss on the street, is it discrimination to forbid it?".


He also said that laws are based on morals, and gay marriage is immoral.
These are the kind of guys that give religion a bad name. His facebook group also had the pic of a westboro church. He didn't answer when I told him that catholics are in the black list of the westboro church .
||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||

#18
Marriage is a religious thing. If the religion is against gays marrying and then the church marries gay people, it makes no sense.

I have no problem with gays, but the marriage thing contradicts itself. The gays should have a governmental equivalent to marriage. I think the gov't stance on gay marriage is right, but I think their reasons for doing so are wrong(ignorance/intolerance).

So gay marriage? No.
Gay partnership/manriage? Yes.
This is why I don't like arguing on the internet.
Quote by damian_91
If only you could back that statement up.
Quote by Zombee
Wolfgang's Philadelphia Study. Look it up yourself.
Quote by damian_91
No need to, absurd generalizations aren't my thing.
#19
Quote by Zombee
Marriage is a religious thing. If the religion is against gays marrying and then the church marries gay people, it makes no sense.

I have no problem with gays, but the marriage thing contradicts itself. The gays should have a governmental equivalent to marriage. I think the gov't stance on gay marriage is right, but I think their reasons for doing so are wrong(ignorance/intolerance).

So gay marriage? No.
Gay partnership/manriage? Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Marriage
||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||

#20
If marriage is a religious idea, then should atheists be restricted from marriage as well? The gay community simply wants the right to be able to have a legal union with another person. Denying them of this right is very much so discrimination. America needs to stop the religious bullsh*t from holding people back.
#21
Quote by urik


Well, there you go. Just get a gov't marriage.

When did this become illegal?
This is why I don't like arguing on the internet.
Quote by damian_91
If only you could back that statement up.
Quote by Zombee
Wolfgang's Philadelphia Study. Look it up yourself.
Quote by damian_91
No need to, absurd generalizations aren't my thing.
Last edited by Zombee at Dec 12, 2008,
#22
Quote by Zombee
Well, there you go. Just get a gov't marriage.

When did this become illegal?

Only two states in the U.S.: Massachusetts and Connecticut, currently recognize same-sex unions as legal marriages. In 24 countries worldwide, and several other states within the US, a same-sex couple can be legally partnered in a civil union or registered partnership. These partnerships, first recognized in Denmark in 1989 are afforded rights and obligations similar to those afforded by a marriage, though many people do not regard them in the same light as a marriage.

In the United States, a piece of legislation called The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage at the federal level in purely heterosexual terms. Additionally, many states will not recognize and afforded a same-sex couple in a civil union the same rights and responsibilities as a married opposite-sex couple.
||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||
||||||||||||||||||||

#23
Yeah, if they want to limit gay marriage, they should just say that it has to be done by a judge or mayor or something.

Whatever, though, America votes these people into office.
This is why I don't like arguing on the internet.
Quote by damian_91
If only you could back that statement up.
Quote by Zombee
Wolfgang's Philadelphia Study. Look it up yourself.
Quote by damian_91
No need to, absurd generalizations aren't my thing.
#24
i think the definition of marriage is "union between a man and a woman", witch excludes gay marriage.
i also think that gay people should have the same rights as heterosexuals, so that let us 2 choices:

1. make another institution that gives them the same rights than marriage and give it another name
2. change the view/definition of marriage

problem with the 2nd definition is that religion over that past thousand years has kind of "appropriated" the use of marriage. changing there view will be really hard.

the 1st should work, but it isn't accepted by a big part of the homsexual community, only because it's not the same word as "marriage".

and now we don't get forward because both community are stubborn, wohooo
#25
america...land of the free


unless you are gay, black, asian, middle eastern, disabled, emo etc
#26
Quote by IcedRth
america...land of the free


unless you are black, asian, middle eastern, disabled, emo etc


how is america holding all these people down?
This is why I don't like arguing on the internet.
Quote by damian_91
If only you could back that statement up.
Quote by Zombee
Wolfgang's Philadelphia Study. Look it up yourself.
Quote by damian_91
No need to, absurd generalizations aren't my thing.
#27
Quote by Djaydjay
i think the definition of marriage is "union between a man and a woman", witch excludes gay marriage.
i also think that gay people should have the same rights as heterosexuals, so that let us 2 choices:

1. make another institution that gives them the same rights than marriage and give it another name
2. change the view/definition of marriage

problem with the 2nd definition is that religion over that past thousand years has kind of "appropriated" the use of marriage. changing there view will be really hard.

the 1st should work, but it isn't accepted by a big part of the homsexual community, only because it's not the same word as "marriage".

and now we don't get forward because both community are stubborn, wohooo


That's all fine and well, but what about what they believe? Does it really seem fair that they should have to abide to what you believe rather than what they do? Sounds somewhat fascist IMO.

Quote by IcedRth
america...land of the free


unless you are gay, black, asian, middle eastern, disabled, emo etc


Too true. Well, sorta. It's not that bad for most groups, but gays are just getting it hard right now(quote that out of context and I will massacre you and strew the entrails throughout the streets) because their the most "recent" ethnic group to "pop up". For example, 40 years ago you could be locked up just for saying you were gay. 40 years ago a black man couldn't propose to a white woman. It's been fourty years and now it's illegal in some places to discriminate against African-Americans.

It's merely tougher for gays because up until the 1950's, the total heterosexualism society forced on everyone, including those who are/were homosexual, made them basically not exist.
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 73-78
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 2-0
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 24-7
#28
Same sex relationships should be able to be recognised as unions under the law and partners in a same sex relationship should be entitled to all the matrimonial property rights that people in heterosexual relationships have. In New Zealand we have 'civil unions' that can be entered into by anyone (homosexual or heterosexual), the important thing is that they entail the same legal rights as marriages.
#29
Quote by necrosis1193
That's all fine and well, but what about what they believe? Does it really seem fair that they should have to abide to what you believe rather than what they do? Sounds somewhat fascist IMO.


Too true. Well, sorta. It's not that bad for most groups, but gays are just getting it hard right now(quote that out of context and I will massacre you and strew the entrails throughout the streets) because their the most "recent" ethnic group to "pop up". For example, 40 years ago you could be locked up just for saying you were gay. 40 years ago a black man couldn't propose to a white woman. It's been fourty years and now it's illegal in some places to discriminate against African-Americans.

It's merely tougher for gays because up until the 1950's, the total heterosexualism society forced on everyone, including those who are/were homosexual, made them basically not exist.


Hetrosexualism?
#30
Quote by IcedRth
Hetrosexualism?


*kills, maims and strews entrails throughout streets*

Anyway, heterosexualism, heterosexuality, it's 5 AM here, I'm legally allowed to futz up my grammar here and there.
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 73-78
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 2-0
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 24-7
#31
I'm ok with gay marriage as long as the religions that don't support it don't have to perform it.
XIAOXI
#32
That's all fine and well, but what about what they believe? Does it really seem fair that they should have to abide to what you believe rather than what they do? Sounds somewhat fascist IMO.


well, nowadays the majority of people do think that marriage is between a man and a woman, and a part the minority has kind of to "accept" it (please no fascist bull**** on this, it's not because the majority think they're right that they can do anything...)

the thing i can't understand is why homosexuals can't accept the civil union? it gives them exactly the same rights... but only has another name.

I mean, union between two people of the same sex and union bewtween two people of the opposite sex IS something different (if you deny that, you have some real trouble in your mind), why can't you accept calling it with two different names? as long as you have the same rights, there is no discrimination...
#34
Quote by Kiwi Ace
I doubt anyone is advocating that they should - there just needs to be an equal legal recognition of same sex relationships.


My parents are very much against it, one of the reasons being that religions would come under pressure to perform them.

I'm very ignorant in this issue. I understand that there is some kind of union thing they can get. How does it differ to marriage?
XIAOXI
#35
Quote by Djaydjay
well, nowadays the majority of people do think that marriage is between a man and a woman, and a part the minority has kind of to "accept" it (please no fascist bull**** on this, it's not because the majority think they're right that they can do anything...)

the thing i can't understand is why homosexuals can't accept the civil union? it gives them exactly the same rights... but only has another name.

I mean, union between two people of the same sex and union bewtween two people of the opposite sex IS something different (if you deny that, you have some real trouble in your mind), why can't you accept calling it with two different names? as long as you have the same rights, there is no discrimination...


I'm Jewish. Does that mean I have to accept Jesus and convert or not get equal rights to practice religion? Why should marriage, something arguably lesser, be any different?

Alright, say it's switched, you, I and everyone else who's straight are barred from marriage and are the ones who have to accept Civil Union. How would you feel?

It is something different, I'll admit that, but love is love, why does one get a ceremony and the other doesn't?
THE FORUM UPDATE KILLED THE GRADIENT STAR

Baltimore Orioles: 2014 AL Eastern Division Champions, 2017: 73-78
Baltimore Ravens: 2012 World Champions, 2017: 2-0
2017 NFL Pick 'Em: 24-7
#36
Quote by Abunai X
My parents are very much against it, one of the reasons being that religions would come under pressure to perform them.

I'm very ignorant in this issue. I understand that there is some kind of union thing they can get. How does it differ to marriage?

Whether or not religions perform it is a matter for the respective churches. Ensuring persons have equal, non-discriminatory rights is a matter for the state - this is the issue: "Due to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), same-sex couples in marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships in the U.S. do not have the 1,138 rights that a married couple has under federal law."
#37
Quote by Korosu
If marriage is a religious idea, then should atheists be restricted from marriage as well? The gay community simply wants the right to be able to have a legal union with another person. Denying them of this right is very much so discrimination. America needs to stop the religious bullsh*t from holding people back.


I agree 100%.

If gay marriage is banned, divorce and adultery should be banned too.

And the thing about civil unions is that in a lot of places, they're not even allowed to have even that.

They're allowed domestic partnerships, but that doesn't come with half the fucking rights civil unions or marriages do.

I'm fine with churches not being forced to marry homosexuals. It's against their religion, and that's fine. But that doesn't mean they have to be denied access to the entire institution. Allow them to marry legally. Allow a priest to bless it if he wants.

Marriage has lost all sanctity as far as I'm concerned. Might as well make a new thing for the churches so keen on banning homosexuality forever. And while they're at it, ban divorce and adultery. It makes sense.

Thing is, treating two groups of people differently is wrong.
Separate is not equal.
And as Martin Luther King Jr said, injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere.

Marriage is about love.
Love is blind. It does not see gender.
Banning gay anything is intolerance.
Intolerance is hate.
And hate does not belong in any "definition of marriage."
#38
Quote by Korosu
If marriage is a religious idea, then should atheists be restricted from marriage as well? The gay community simply wants the right to be able to have a legal union with another person. Denying them of this right is very much so discrimination. America needs to stop the religious bullsh*t from holding people back.



I agree with this statement. When Ellen and her lady got hitched, it didn't effect anyone. No one got killed, nothing blew up, the sun still came out the next day. Gay people deserve the right to be together. Some argue that it will make marrage meanless, the holy union of man and woman. Because we all know the when Britney Spears married that kid form her high school for what a week, that was about the most meaningfull marrage ever.
  • Ibanez Soundgear
  • Cort SJB-3 Acoustic
  • Epiphone Goth X-Treme
  • DigiTech BP50
  • Epiphone Les Paul Custom 3 Plus LTD
  • Epiphone Les Paul Standard
  • Cort Evl-K6
  • DigiTech RP80


Cort Guitar Owner's Club 2nd member.
#39
Quote by basscrue
I agree with this statement. When Ellen and her lady got hitched, it didn't effect anyone. No one got killed, nothing blew up, the sun still came out the next day. Gay people deserve the right to be together. Some argue that it will make marrage meanless, the holy union of man and woman. Because we all know the when Britney Spears married that kid form her high school for what a week, that was about the most meaningfull marrage ever.


It's because they were lesbians.
Purple string dampener scrunchy.
#40
Quote by Zombee
Marriage is a religious thing. If the religion is against gays marrying and then the church marries gay people, it makes no sense.


Never has been and never will be. Religion does not have a monopoly on the word marriage. Marriage and relations akin to it have been around much longer than your goofy religion that you use for blatant prejudice.

Regardless, the church doesn't have to recognize or marry anybody they don't want to (even straight couples). They can marry/not marry whoever they please. That doesn't mean they get to take an English word for their own. The government can't make the church recognize the married couple...violation of church and state (you see, we respect the laws).

Separate but equal is inherently unequal.

I have no problem with gays, but the marriage thing contradicts itself. The gays should have a governmental equivalent to marriage. I think the gov't stance on gay marriage is right, but I think their reasons for doing so are wrong(ignorance/intolerance).

So gay marriage? No.
Gay partnership/manriage? Yes.

No it doesn't. Marriage is an English word able to be used by anyone regardless of your silly reasoning about it being "contradictory." Marriage is about vows to love your partner unconditionally in times of good and bad. It's not about god.

Might also want to learn there are gay female couples...womanriage? Don't be ****in stupid. Dumbest thing I've heard in a long time in this debate.
Page 1 of 2