 |
|
Alvaro
|
|
the land of the not so free
Apr 2003
time: 05:27
|
|
I don't think gay marriage is a good idea.
I don't think gay couples adopting is a good idea
Infact, I don't think homosexuality is right. But shoot me on the spot if I will ever try and prevent either.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alvaro
|
|
the land of the not so free
Apr 2003
time: 05:27
|
|
My morals are for me to act by. I have no intentions on forcing them upon anyone.
I don't think it's morally wrong because I think it's genetical. It's not their choice to be homosexual.
We were not put on this planet to be homosexual. I have a penis and my girlfriend has clitoris so that we could have children. That's our #1 goal in this life according to the bible, and the holy book is spot on, we are what we leave behind us and there's no more memorable or valuable a legacy than human life and since homosexual relationships cannot create it - they're wrong.
I don't think that homosexuality is to be encouraged, it is un-natural, however I don't think that gays should be restricted in their rights, "it's not their fault", so to speak. The more people on this planet feel more comfortable on this planet without hurting/disturbing others - the better it is.
edit: the standard "i have gay friends and all that..." disclaimer. the fact that i don't approve of my friends sexual preferences doesnt mean im not happy for them etc. well you get my point.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
gunkulator
|
|
I don't think the state has any business in anyone's personal relationship. That being said, there are legal issues like power of attorney and inheritance where the state recognizes and gives preference to married partners. Call them marriages or domestic partnerships - gays deserve the same rights are straights.
The real sticky issue in my book is with children. The state has special interests, rights, responsibilities when it comes to children. In particular, the state has an interest in seeing that those who are responsibile for bringing children into this world stick around to care for the children. In the past, the institution of marriage has been given social privilege to ensure that the next generation is cared for. In exchange for special status and extra legal rights, a man/woman pair that married was expected to forsake all other sexual partners and care for the any children produced by the union. Shame was dumped on those reneged.
Gay marriages are unique in that the concern about sexual "accidents" is simply not there. The state has no interest in how many partners they have - nor should it. Of course today there are birth control devices and STDs but for the most part, the old concerns are valid. It is simply better for a society if heteros are instilled with societal mores that discourage promiscuity, especially after marriage. In this way alone, straight marriage is different from homosexual marriage.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Frogman
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alvaro
My morals are for me to act by. I have no intentions on forcing them upon anyone.
I don't think it's morally wrong because I think it's genetical. It's not their choice to be homosexual.
We were not put on this planet to be homosexual. I have a penis and my girlfriend has clitoris so that we could have children. That's our #1 goal in this life according to the bible, and the holy book is spot on, we are what we leave behind us and there's no more memorable or valuable a legacy than human life and since homosexual relationships cannot create it - they're wrong.
I don't think that homosexuality is to be encouraged, it is un-natural, however I don't think that gays should be restricted in their rights, "it's not their fault", so to speak.
|
Two points. First, is it wrong for a heterosexual couple to be married if they are incapable of having children? Procreation is not the moral legitimacy for marriage, love and fidelity is.
Second, how can you say that while 10% or so of our population is homosexual, by genetics, and then say its not natural? It may not be typical, but its just as natural and normal as left handedness. I don't find homosexuality to be a whole lot different than being left handed. Left handed people don't choose it, some try to switch just to fit in, and they have to adjust in a world made for right handers, but being a minority doesn't make them unnatural.
People aren't going to switch to being gay just because we accept them as normal. Its a hard coded preference that seems to go with artistic abilities. I don't know why that is, but the world would be a more dreary place without the contributions of the gay community.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
red_jon
|
 |
Uni of Wales Swansea
Oct 2000
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Frogman
Two points. First, is it wrong for a heterosexual couple to be married if they are incapable of having children? Procreation is not the moral legitimacy for marriage, love and fidelity is.
Second, how can you say that while 10% or so of our population is homosexual, by genetics, and then say its not natural? It may not be typical, but its just as natural and normal as left handedness. I don't find homosexuality to be a whole lot different than being left handed. Left handed people don't choose it, some try to switch just to fit in, and they have to adjust in a world made for right handers, but being a minority doesn't make them unnatural.
People aren't going to switch to being gay just because we accept them as normal. Its a hard coded preference that seems to go with artistic abilities. I don't know why that is, but the world would be a more dreary place without the contributions of the gay community. |
Well said.
And in Victorian Times, left-handed schoolchildren were forced to write with their right hand.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alvaro
|
|
the land of the not so free
Apr 2003
time: 05:27
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boddington's
I find it ironic that gays wish to legitimise their partnerships through the medium of marriage, which is itself an institution founded through the principles of Christianity, a religion which rightfully states that homosexuality is not to be acted upon. |
That's a good point. However there are now financial advantages to married couples, and let us not forget that marriage is not tied to religion so closely as it used to, even here in Israel.
quote:
Two points. First, is it wrong for a heterosexual couple to be married if they are incapable of having children? Procreation is not the moral legitimacy for marriage, love and fidelity is. |
See Boddington's above quote.
quote:
People aren't going to switch to being gay just because we accept them as normal. Its a hard coded preference that seems to go with artistic abilities. I don't know why that is, but the world would be a more dreary place without the contributions of the gay community. |
Absolutely correct. However I find that stereotypical "artsy" reference quite out of place, I don't think gays, lefties or any other such sector stand out, or at least have not seen a reliable resaerch to prove it.
quote:
Second, how can you say that while 10% or so of our population is homosexual, by genetics, and then say its not natural? |
The day that 2 homosexual men/women procreate without external help is the day I call it natural. If it cannot survive - it is not natural. Most mutations become extinct. If gays were to be left on their own - they'd not survive.
From what I know lefties are not impotent, they can f*** quite well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alvaro
|
|
the land of the not so free
Apr 2003
time: 05:27
|
|
adam + eve = children
dog + ***** = puppies
james + adam = 0
angelica + pamela = 0
The idea is that if the couple cannot have children ON THEIR OWN WITHOUT EXTERNAL HELP (as is said by me in the paragraph you quoted) - it is not natural.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Japher
|
 |
Ook! Ook! Ack! Ack! Ack!
Jun 2002
time: 05:27
|
|
{Because I am Lazy Gay will mean homosexual, incl. Lezbian}
Gay people should be allowed to marry and gain any advantages/disadvantages alloted to them by the state for such an institution.
Love and fidelity are not the reasons for marriage, these things can be given without the vow... Religion may have defined what marriage is, but it no longer represents the institution as a whole; people can be married by a justice of the peace, and atheists get married all the time..
The real reason for marriage is a) to affirm one's love for another, and b) to people to legally support the one the love. The affirmation is not something that the state needs to grant, though (b) is, and gay people want that there is no reason for the state to withhold it from them.
It was brought up that a concern for gay marriages, if legalized, would cause "alternative" lifestyles, that are destined to failed, to become more prolific... Really? Seeing as the divorce rate is already high, that the number of single parents growing rapidly, and the the number of children without homes or any parents is also growing I don't see how gay marriages can hurt. I have seen plenty of straight marriages occur that were doomed from the start. IMO it is not a gay or straight thing, but a stupid and blind thing... We don't prevent stupid people from marrying...
Gays with Kids: As noted in the paragraph above; there are many kids without homes or parents. Gay couples can create some very stable homes for these (as well as their own) kids. Some may argue that a kid needs a mother/father figure... My response; most don't already. At least in the case of gay couples the kid will have two loving parents.
Thus, while we (and the government) argue the case of gay marriages, and whether they will harm society, we have allowed straight marriages to cause the harm without even a whimper.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27.
Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-04-2003 18:42
|