Same-Sex Marriage (3 Viewers)

[boris]

A thread concerning faggots should not be discussed.
Fags are fags, thats it, they should die.

Good post anonymous little bitch

 

[Riproot]

Clownfish change genders.
Dolphins partake in casual sex.
Monkeys have shown homosexual acts and have causal sex.
You showed a video of interspecies oral sex

Some species of fly are exclusively bisexual.

1st: ur dumb, that makes complete sense
2nd: ur dumb again. Unorthodox: "Contrary to what is usual"
3rd: Yes, that is true. If you change somewhere down your life you were born bisexual. Not every person born straight is 'susceptible,' as ur basically putting it, to have a random gay vibe... Attraction is chemically stimulated... And you are either born with it or you are not
please dont be so stupid next time

I'm bi and I'm not changing "down the track" I just have sex with both genders now.
What you're talking about it when I person realises they are gay, and this is probably because they didn't experiment until later in life and didn't know, meaning that they should've "tried it out" earlier, which is opposed to what you said earlier. So, really you don't know what you're talking about and you're making no sense.
Hormones can also change over time, changing many chemical activities in your body (which could include attraction).

Surpirsed this thread has gone on for so long. Gay marriage isn't a big deal - whether they can have children is the major issue, and one that should be strictly prevented. You make the choice to be gay, well knowingly that you cannot naturally reproduce therefore you shouldn't be, tough luck busters

How is it a major issue?
It's not a choice.
Some hetero couples choose to be in a relationship knowing they can't naturally produce, but have sperm/ova donours/surrogate mothers/IVF/etc. why are they allowed and homos not?

i agree that they should not be allowed to have children as it isnt a natural part of their sexual orientation
but i dont believe they "choose" to be gay
but other than that i agree

Why? What is your actual reason? Sexual orientation is one facet of a person's life and shouldn't influence anything else.

they are gay due to various influences

Clear juxtaposition to what you said before.

this thread really needs to be in ncap
and that shithole really needs to be moderated properly (not banning for swearing, just deleting unsubstantiated shit posts etc)

I got banned in NCAP for saying shit that wasn't that bad... Leave this here.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

How very ancient of you.

Ancient Greece anyone?

 

[aldotheaphelion]

Who are all these bibletards who voted no?

 

[cheese_cheese]

Who are all these bibletards who voted no?

Show some respect.

 

[boris]

bible spastic cunts

 

[pony_magician]

Show some respect.

Name one legitimate non-biblical reason against same-sex marriage.

 

[cheese_cheese]

Name one legitimate non-biblical reason against same-sex marriage.

I was talking about his 'bibletards' comment. I am Catholic although I personally think that is two people of the same gender truly love each other, then they should be allowed to get married.

 

[pony_magician]

I was talking about his 'bibletards' comment. I am Catholic although I personally think that is two people of the same gender truly love each other, then they should be allowed to get married.

While maybe not stated that eloquently, it still is true that the one of the only, and certainly the most popular, reason against it is because of religion/the bible.
And most people who take the bible literally and follow every point are stupid.

 

[Lina3]

Clearly, everyone will have their own view on the matter as with most things. This is just my opinion: First up, I am atheist so my views are not manipulated by personal religious beliefs in any way but nevertheless I do not believe homosexuals should be allowed to marry. Marriage is should be between a man and a woman, however that does not mean relationships have to be. Clearly marriage is regarded by religious people as a sacred union and according to the scriptures it should be between a man and a woman. I do not see why other people's beliefs should be tampered with for the sake of a minority. This whole question is obviously ruffling the feathers of many religious people so why not leave it and look for other alternatives? Homosexuals should have some kind of an official union, similar to marriage but not 'marriage' in name. Clearly, in this case there is a lot in a name but surely, if a same-sex couple love each other they would want to get together by the easiest means possible.

 

[Riproot]

"should be between a man and a woman" why?
"Shouldn't change for minority" What about civil rights in America?
"Religious practice, etc." Marriage was around before religions institutionalised it. (read earlier posts in this thread)

 

[Lina3]

"should be between a man and a woman" why?
"Shouldn't change for minority" What about civil rights in America?
"Religious practice, etc." Marriage was around before religions institutionalised it. (read earlier posts in this thread)

1. This stems from the fact that marriage is, even today, a religious practice. It is associated with religion and therefore the belief of the religion is an important thing to consider that is why marriage, in a full sense of the word, should be between a man and a woman.
2. Of course homosexuals have a right to be together but why should the definition of marriage be changed? Modern society is one that has a clear separation between church and state. Although I do not agree with it, it must be acknowledged the religion is a barrier for many believers that refrains them from doing certain things despite them having the civil rights to do them (such as sex before marriage, going to parties etc). To me those beliefs are rather antediluvian but for many they are the foundation on which people build their morals and values and that should be respected.
3. Of course it was, but what matters is now. We are having this debate in the present and just because marriage had nothing to do with religion once upon a time doesn't mean we are at liberty to make it so again. And we wouldn't be able to even if we tried.

 

[LonelyWolf]

by legalising gay marriage you are legitimising sodomy

 

[Phoenix Fury]

but religion is dumb, definitions aren't sacred or set in stone and marriage is only religious if you want it to be (celebrants / non religious folk can marry people)

 

[Lolsmith]

you people are *still* debating this?

 

[pony_magician]

1. This stems from the fact that marriage is, even today, a religious practice. It is associated with religion and therefore the belief of the religion is an important thing to consider that is why marriage, in a full sense of the word, should be between a man and a woman.

Which is what I said. The only reason people provide against samesex marriage is based off of religious reasons.
Which is fucking stupid.

 

[MysteryGenius]

you people are *still* debating this?

^

most points being argued now have become just a tad redundant

 

[Phoenix Fury]

no one debating

everyone just pooping out poop

 

[Riproot]

1. This stems from the fact that marriage is, even today, a religious practice. It is associated with religion and therefore the belief of the religion is an important thing to consider that is why marriage, in a full sense of the word, should be between a man and a woman.
2. Of course homosexuals have a right to be together but why should the definition of marriage be changed? Modern society is one that has a clear separation between church and state. Although I do not agree with it, it must be acknowledged the religion is a barrier for many believers that refrains them from doing certain things despite them having the civil rights to do them (such as sex before marriage, going to parties etc). To me those beliefs are rather antediluvian but for many they are the foundation on which people build their morals and values and that should be respected.
3. Of course it was, but what matters is now. We are having this debate in the present and just because marriage had nothing to do with religion once upon a time doesn't mean we are at liberty to make it so again. And we wouldn't be able to even if we tried.

1. Retarded statement is retarded. Temple puja is a religious practice and I can do it whenever I like.
Baptism is a religious practice and priests were clad to baptise me and I was an unwilling baby and now I am an atheist.
I got my first communion and confirmation when I clearly had no interest in the catholic faith.
I don't see your point.
2. The definitions of words change all the time and new words are formed. Still don't see your point.
3. Celebrants that aren't religious. You're not making any sense at all.

 

[Lina3]

1. Retarded statement is retarded. Temple puja is a religious practice and I can do it whenever I like.
Baptism is a religious practice and priests were clad to baptise me and I was an unwilling baby and now I am an atheist.
I got my first communion and confirmation when I clearly had no interest in the catholic faith.
I don't see your point.
2. The definitions of words change all the time and new words are formed. Still don't see your point.
3. Celebrants that aren't religious. You're not making any sense at all.

Clearly, we are not on the same page here,but it's ok. I didn't post here to try and change people's opinions I have my views and I am sticking with them .
However, in answer to your post, I do not see what the nature of other religious practices has to do with changing the definition of marriage. Redefining marriage would not be the same as changing the definition of 'gay' from meaning happy to meaning homosexual it would mean redefining Christian faith. Hey, the church has a hard enough time accepting contraception, let alone same-sex marriage. To me a greater freedom is being able to have the right to your own values without other people pressuring you and trying to change what you believe. I do not see why a separate legal union couldn't be invented specifically for homosexual couples. And also, many same-sex couples live together happily content, raising their children and living their lives without marriage so it is not like marriage is the ONLY way they can be together and raise a family. Heck, I even know people who live in a de facto relationship, perfectly content without marriage vows.
In all honesty, I do not see such a major problem. If anything, homosexuals here do not realize how lucky they are to express themselves without being completely rejected by society. At least, those who do do not take it upon themselves to complain.I lived in Russia and homosexuality was a taboo, and it still is.People like that are shunned and any protests are quietened before they come out of obscurity. Just saying, many have it much worse and it is for those people that I reserve my wholehearted sympathy.