|
same sex marriage (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Orbax |
They should be accorded the same rights as any other citizen by the government.
Religions get to choose what they will and will not do regarding it.
Which means the government will, if they want it to be a truly universal rights benefit, create an institution that anyone can sign up for that will grant them live in rights.
-
on the personal note i think its disgusting and Id be happier if it didnt happen. |
|
|
| tranceDJ |
| President Bush says that we have to keep marriage "sacred" blah, blah, blah. Is marriage that sacred anymore with a 50% divorce rate and drive through marriages in Vegas? Marriage is a right everyone should have I think. |
|
|
| Orbax |
it isnt a matter of the sanctity of marriage, its the seperation of church and state.
edit: im fully aware of the government sanctioned practice of marriage. If you look at it as a society though its something the government would and should encourage.
If that isnt clear enough, as a society you want your populace to have obligations. It helps keep them in line. Slows the rampant child production of multiple partners, helps keep disease down, and lowers the acts of insanity that men usually engage in while single. |
|
|
| Nabistai |
I could care less abour gays
UNLESS they dress in pink or act stupid because they think they're allowed because they're gay. I also sickens me to see 2 gays 'be intimite' (in any way). *throw-upsmilie* |
|
|
| Orbax |
| Public Displays of Affection are annoying anyway. The military doesnt allow its people do it even when not on base. It pisses everyone off. |
|
|
| UWM |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nabistai
I could care less abour gays
UNLESS they dress in pink or act stupid because they think they're allowed because they're gay. I also sickens me to see 2 gays 'be intimite' (in any way). *throw-upsmilie* |
I own some pink shirts, am I allowed to if I'm heterosexual? |
|
|
| Nabistai |
| quote: | Originally posted by Orbax
Public Displays of Affection are annoying anyway. |
True that is. |
|
|
| Exodus17 |
| quote: | Originally posted by tranceDJ
President Bush says that we have to keep marriage "sacred" blah, blah, blah. Is marriage that sacred anymore with a 50% divorce rate and drive through marriages in Vegas? Marriage is a right everyone should have I think. |
+1 |
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by Nabistai
UNLESS they dress in pink or act stupid because they think they're allowed because they're gay. |
What's that supposed to mean? You have a problem with homosexuals dressing as they wish? You think homosexuals "act stupid" because they think "they're allowed" to? Perhaps we should just introduce some laws that place limits on how "outrageous" they're allowed to be in public, just to keep you happy?
| quote: | | I also sickens me to see 2 gays 'be intimite' (in any way). *throw-upsmilie* |
The first time I ever saw a homosexual couple "be intimate" with each other was last year (the fact that I hadn't ever seen a homosexual couple "be intimate" together in the first 20 years of my life is already a sad indictment on how intolerent society is) in a club. At first, like many people I suspect, I was repulsed by it, but then I thought: they're expressing their love for each other, publicly, as they have the right to do and I'm sitting here judging them - who's the one with the problem here?
Seeing a man kiss another man is almost certainly going to make the average heterosexual man feel a bit queasy, but ultimately it's our attitude that needs to be changed, not theirs. I'm not saying they should be allowed to go for it wantonly in the middle of a crowded room, but if they're merely sharing a kiss in a secluded corner of a public place - as heterosexual couples do all the time - then what exactly is the problem? |
|
|
| colonelcrisp |
i think orbax illustrated the key point. it is well taught political doctrine that religion and politics dont mix. especially in a non homogenous multicultural society such as canada or the states. you have numerous different beliefs that cannot be represented by one faith. a true democracy should function to benefit all its people by some unanemous charter that is free from religious influences. for instance, if your a practicing catholic and same sex marriages are legal, that doesnt mean you have to participate in one. or even have your church perform one. but there are alot of faith bodies out there both christian and non christian that have either embraced the subject or at least accepted it. i think homosexual tolerance is all that we can hopefor in this day in age but that doesnt mean excluding them from the "sanctity of marriage" which is bs in my opinion. there is more cheating and divorce these days than happy endings.
denying GLBT's the right to marry is the same as segregation in the states back in the day. i doubt the states will ever legalize it, but i hope canada does and upholds it. let the individual churches decide wether or not they will allow them to be performed in their respective faiths. Lets not forget that it is possible to legaly wed outside of a religious faction. engineers, doctors, lawyers, judges and priests can all legaly wed people.
so i guess i just dont think there are any pertinent arguments aginst it. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
Stop confusing homosexual acts between consenting adults (a private issue) with gay marriage (a very PUBLIC issue).
Check my sig.
| quote: | Marriage is by nature heterosexual, for it contains a very special union between a man and a woman, a bond that gives rise to future generations through the ability of procreation. No other union shares this ability. This is not discrimination, it is reality. Denying homosexual couples the legal rights and privileges that married spouses enjoy would be a breach of human rights. We do not contest this – we support it. Gay and lesbian couples are given the same rights under a civil union. There is no violation of human rights when the traditional definition of marriage is upheld.
A heterosexual relationship is by nature different from a homosexual one. So why should they be defined as one and the same? We believe this would unfairly lessen the vital role that heterosexual couples play as parents of future generations. They are the cornerstone of civilization, and should be recognized as such. Our government needs to reflect the laws of nature in its own laws and policies. |
|
|
|
| Renegade |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
Marriage is by nature heterosexual, for it contains a very special union between a man and a woman, a bond that gives rise to future generations through the ability of procreation. |
So procreation is the test of a legitimate marriage? Tough luck infertile and childless couples, you've been undermining the sanctity of marriage for too long!
| quote: | | We believe this would unfairly lessen the vital role that heterosexual couples play as parents of future generations. They are the cornerstone of civilization, and should be recognized as such. |
Wow, really? I always though the cornerstone of civilisation was agriculture. Or the ready availabilty of productive resources. Or oganised government. Or some process of law-enforcement. But it seems I was wrong - apparently no civilization can function without the legally enabled suppression of homosexual couples! Wait until the ancient Greeks, Spartans and Romans hear about this! |
|
|
|
|
