same sex marriage?

[craigcully]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Majority? I'll assume you meant maturity. Either way, I am still right. Maturity is dictated by an age dictated by society. Marriage was dicated by society as a man and a woman. If the mayor can go against societies wishes in issueing marraige certificates, then someone who wants to marry a 12 year old should just find a judge that believes 12 year olds are mature and doesn't care what society says.


I'd hate to be the one filling in the paper work for diving up social security checks to all your wives.

I think he's right on this one Yogs, age of MAJORITY. What, I think it's like 19 here in Nebraska, the age where you are able to sign for contracts and medical stuff, all that neat shit. But I agree with you, the moral issue doesn't apply because it's still illegal for a gay couple to get married. Until that changes, breaking the law is still breaking the law. And I think that the San Fransisco governor should find a little less controversial way of bringing a change in that law than breaking it.

[Pick]

Originally Posted by taranaki

It doesn't matter whether Cupid's arrow hits you in the heart or in the ass,at the end of the day it is still good to be a loving person.The same rules apply in my mind to straight and gay...keep it discreet,be sensitive about who you flirt with,and above all,do what makes you happy.

I don't have a problem with two men loving each other, which is a hard stance for me to take. But I do not believe that gay marriage should be legal for a few reasons:

Firstly, these homos in Massachusetts want to have legalized gay marriage for one reason: money. They want to have the same discounted insurance rates as a straight married couple would, without actually having the union between themself and a women. That is what I have a problem with. They are not a marriage union, because they are same-sex. And the context of a marriage union in America is overwhelming used to describe a man and woman.

Secondly, there are many couples living together that are not married and would like to have married benefits. Why shouldn't they also get benefits if two men should? They are after all, lgally accredited tp be married, but they don't want to be. So, since they are not legally married, they recieve no married benefits.

This whole same-sex marriage thing is not about love, but about money and cutting corners.

[bm2boats]

As it is now, Gays CAN Adopt children now. They don't need to be Married. Rosie ( the Fat Cow) ODonnell, That one Singer Millesia something, they are Gay and Adopted children.
Can anyone out there tell if there is 1 country out there that allows Gays to Marry?
Let the Gays pay more in Taxes. Hell why should straight people get hit with paying more taxes if we are married.
People like to bring relegion into this topic. I look at this way. I do not belive in that Life Style. I don't belive in Abortions for Birth Control. I belive that if you choose either course, You have to answer to your God on the day you die. If you don't belive in a God, Don't worry about it.

[Cbass]

Originally Posted by Pick

I don't have a problem with two men loving each other, which is a hard stance for me to take. But I do not believe that gay marriage should be legal for a few reasons:

Firstly, these homos in Massachusetts want to have legalized gay marriage for one reason: money. They want to have the same discounted insurance rates as a straight married couple would, without actually having the union between themself and a women. That is what I have a problem with. They are not a marriage union, because they are same-sex. And the context of a marriage union in America is overwhelming used to describe a man and woman.

Ok, you've just offered your blatantly offensive opinion as fact, which is what I would expect, now back it up.

Can you offer anything to support that assertion? If I was homosexual, and wanted to marry another homosexual man I happened to be in love with, and wanted to spend the rest of my life with, would that be because I'd get insurance discounts? I don't think so.

Originally Posted by pick

Secondly, there are many couples living together that are not married and would like to have married benefits. Why shouldn't they also get benefits if two men should? They are after all, lgally accredited tp be married, but they don't want to be. So, since they are not legally married, they recieve no married benefits.

Ok, out of that confusing jumble of a paragraph, I take it you mean there are many commonlaw couples who would like to have the benefits... Well, if they want them that badly, they should get married... That's all that the homosexuals want, to be married. Nobody prevents heterosexuals commonlaw husbands and wives from tying the knot officially, but there are many people preventing, or at least trying to prevent homosexuals from marrying.

In my country, the old definition of a marriage being between a man and a women was found to be unconstitutional in the highest court of law, so it was thrown out. Homosexuals are free to exercise their right to marry in Canada.

Since we're just throwing around opinions here, I think that the opponents of same sex marriages are either religious zealots, homophobes, or both.

Originally Posted by pick

This whole same-sex marriage thing is not about love, but about money and cutting corners.

Glad to see you have your finger on the pulse of the gay community, Pick! Maybe there's something you're not telling us?

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by Pick

This whole same-sex marriage thing is not about love, but about money and cutting corners.

This statement says a lot about your own values.Clearly you value understand money better than love.

[Pick]

Originally Posted by taranaki

This statement says a lot about your own values.Clearly you value understand money better than love.

What the hell do you know about my feelings about money and love?

The bottom line is you can love somebody and not be married. There are many straight people that live and love as one without being married. That is what gay people do as of right now, and that's the way it should be. The problem with what these gay people are arguing for occurs when they want to use married insurance and property money as an asset to being married. That is what my point is: it is indeed about money. If it was about love, they shouldn't be concerned with whether they can be legally married, as right now, they can use any kind of relationship except a legal marriage. If they really love each other, they shouldn't give a crap whether some goons in the government tell them they should or shouldn't do. But that doesn't make what they are doing right or justified.

Marriage has been reserved to a man and a woman for years and it is overwhelmingly defined that way in America today. I'm so sick of people attacking hetereosexuals like they are the ones doing something wrong. The level of political correctness in this country is rising to ridiculous levels. And the morals are at an all-time low. We should not let a small group of immoral people play their discrimination card until we give in. This is an issue that is extremely critical to the preservation of a moral society. Its time to take a stand for what is right. And I'm gonna get toasted for this, but I don't care. Its right.

To C-bass:
The definition I view of marriage is not the "old" definition of marriage. It is the morally correct and highly-regarded definition of marriage.

[originalmike]

Since many people believe that marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, maybe a new term should be considered for the permanent institution of a gay couple. This would come with certain privaleges that gay couples are entitled to (for example the same financial benefits as married couples) and maybe some limitations such as adoption.

[DevoutWankelist]

2StrokeBloke

I still don't see it as a problem, except to those who don't feel they have enough to complain about already (on both sides of the argument)

I live in Kansas. . . An ultra conservative poorly informed area where people aren't prone to even discussing compromise. Probably one of the only states that still have "Abortion is Murder" billboards with letters written in psuedo blood still standing on the side of the highway. . . right next to the other 50 billboards with more messages on how OTHER people should lead THEIR lives. I feel your really hitting close to home there 2StrokeBloke, tons of people in my area are really red in the face from screaming around here about this same topic, but theres no argument to be had lol, nobody here who feels different from the moral majority in Kansas would even attempt to reason with them (We've all tried at some point in time with some topic and learned our lessons on the dangers of large groups of people with uncompromising beliefs). That said I think argument is pointless. . . When was the last time you saw someone change what they believed in an argument?

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by Pick

What the hell do you know about my feelings about money and love?

I know what I've seen in these forums,andit's time that you faced up toyour own shortcomings before slagging off anyone else who isn't an uptight,ultra-Republican pseudo-Christian.

Your soul is worthless,and your 'values' are hollow.Do the world a favour,vacate the planet asap.

[Pick]

Originally Posted by originalmike

Since many people believe that marriage is by definition between a man and a woman, maybe a new term should be considered for the permanent institution of a gay couple. This would come with certain privaleges that gay couples are entitled to (for example the same financial benefits as married couples) and maybe some limitations such as adoption.

That's really not a bad idea. But that, to me, is still letting them get away with doing something wrong. The question is what limitations? You give a mouse a cookie..........he'll want a glass of milk.

[Pick]

Originally Posted by taranaki

I know what I've seen in these forums,andit's time that you faced up toyour own shortcomings before slagging off anyone else who isn't an uptight,ultra-Republican pseudo-Christian.

Your soul is worthless,and your 'values' are hollow.Do the world a favour,vacate the planet asap.

Maybe its time you faced up to your own shortcomings and stopped handing out misinformed suggestions to people who have a moral fiber in their body.

[2strokebloke]

Originally Posted by Pick

That's really not a bad idea. But that, to me, is still letting them get away with doing something wrong. The question is what limitations? You give a mouse a cookie..........he'll want a glass of milk.

Here's a scenario that can help put this problem into perspective:

[scenario]Some people tell me that eating meat is wrong. So should it be law that eating meat is wrong? What if these people who believed that eating meat was wrong, had a book thousands of years old, that told them meat eating was wrong. Then of course, it would have to be wrong! After all a book told them so!
And what if these non meat eaters don't get to force the meaters from eating meat? Oh my, the whole moral fabric of society would be ruined. [/scenario]

What we learned, is that the argument is really rather silly, and anybody who actually thinks it's a serious problem - is probably mentally deficient and out of touch with reality.

[YogsVR4]

Originally Posted by 2strokebloke

[scenario]Some people tell me that eating meat is wrong. So should it be law that eating meat is wrong? What if these people who believed that eating meat was wrong, had a book thousands of years old, that told them meat eating was wrong. Then of course, it would have to be wrong! After all a book told them so!
And what if these non meat eaters don't get to force the meaters from eating meat? Oh my, the whole moral fabric of society would be ruined. [/scenario]

What we learned, is that the argument is really rather silly, and anybody who actually thinks it's a serious problem - is probably mentally deficient and out of touch with reality.

Don't let PETA hear you say that

[taranaki]

Originally Posted by Pick

Maybe its time you faced up to your own shortcomings and stopped handing out misinformed suggestions to people who have a moral fiber in their body.

you wouldn't recognise moral fiber if it bit you in the ass,you egocentric little fraud.

[Pick]

Originally Posted by taranaki

you wouldn't recognise moral fiber if it bit you in the ass,you egocentric little fraud.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense considering your stance on just about everything social and political. Resort to name-calling, I don't give a crap. Because it makes you look like a freaking hypocrite, which is what you are. And if you did have a damn moral fiber in YOUR body, you wouldn't be such a politicaly correct, anti-reality, ass-sniffing wannabe internet badass.