The Gay Marriage Controversy

If there's just one thing wrong about gays. It's gay people who get married and get involved in a relashionship with another (guy, woman). In Japan Man can just get promoted if he's married and have childrens...Many guys marry and have childrens After they get married so they wouldnt have sex relations with the wife(since the kids born the mother gets busy) .In Japan if u're 30 and not married. This is very bad. People would think u're addicted to something(alcohol , drugs, game)
Other day My friends Ex-Boyfriend broke up with him And he just said. I'm getting married next week, so it's better if we break up...My friend got shocked...So would I...
But nowadays. Japan is changing..and for better...

P.S. Off course there are many gay people who gets married and have and get involved with another person in the whole world
And KAMA:p !! Very nice!!People like u make us not the best...but almost the best!!!

> I don't see any insults from anyone against gay marriage here, at all. Just derogatory remarks made to them, by others.

Actually you missed some inappropriate remarks saying that gays should be killed. They were deleted.

> It can't be argued against that homosexuality is a defect. It's basic biology, and more importantly, common sense that it's abnormal.

Well as much as you can call left-handedness or red hair a defect. Since most people don't have these qualities then left-handed and red haired people are abnormal, right? If that is what you are trying to say, then I agree.

Another thinking point:
You are aware that some people are physically "abnormal" and have both male and female genitalia, aren't you? Just because they are a minority and are abnormal does that give you the right to treat them unequally under the law?

> The fact that in some countries it's legal for two gay people to adopt is politicl correctness gone crazy. I pity any poor child with same sex parents.

Personally, I pity any child that isn't given love and is abused or neglected. I am happy for children who have two loving parents. It sounds like you are talking about something you know nothing about. Very much like the arguments in the not-so-distant past against interracial marriage.

> Marriage is superficial. If you love someone, you don't need to marry them. At all. People are complaining
> about this for complaining's sake, because they have nothing better to do than whine.
> Rachel, you say that we think 'gay people should have the legal right to be togther'. They DO. They just can't get married. Big deal.

You are missing the point. Besides the fact that these people are not being treated equally under the law, there are many practical problems that they have to face. Like, for instance, most insurance companies & employers don't provide health insurance benefits to non-legally-married partners. Or if there is some medical emergency, a hospital won't recognize the right of the partner to act on behalf of the patient. (Or to even visit in the emergency room.) Try looking past your prejudice and thinking these issues through.

Homosexuality does have a function. In fact I would say it has 2 functions.

:shock:

1 Survival � The human race has survived and become the dominant life form on this planet by being incredibly diverse. We have survived disasters, plagues, wars, weather and eco disasters by such diversity. The fact were still here proves it works. Homosexuality is just one of the many random factors that keeps us in existence.

2. Culture � Without the Homosexual community we wouldn�t have half the culture we do today. Though out history they have made up the bulk of our artists, actors, painters, tailors, sculptors, musicians, designers, directors and writers. Most of the new ideas and advancements in these areas have come from the creativity of homosexuals (A creativity that is unique to their mind set, the way they think). Without homosexuality we would never have had the genius of Oscar Wilde, without homosexuality we probably wouldn�t be having this conversation right now. Alan Turing the man who invented the computer was gay.

BTW Kama. I agree with you totally. Good reply honey ! :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mdchachi

You are missing the point. Besides the fact that these people are not being treated equally under the law, there are many practical problems that they have to face. Like, for instance, most insurance companies & employers don't provide health insurance benefits to non-legally-married partners. Or if there is some medical emergency, a hospital won't recognize the right of the partner to act on behalf of the patient. (Or to even visit in the emergency room.)

---

Well, then the problem resides in insurance companies or hospitals' policies, doesn't it. I mean, if they didn't discriminate first against people living together but not married (shall I remind you that this is more common in Northern Europe than being married, as 50% of British parrents are not married to their partners, and the figure rises to 80% in Sweden).

I don't think that this kind of discimination exist in Europe. As I mentioned earlier, systems like the "pacs" in France give couples similar rights to married couples, and everybody know about these rights, as it is as common as marriage.

Frankly, for visiting the emergency room, I don't see why they make such a fuss. Anyway, how can you prove whether you are the partner or a relative, or somebody else. In case of gay couples, they could just pretend to be a brother or sister. They are never going to ask for an ID, and even if they did, it's not written on it (just say you are half-sibling or step-sibling if they ask why the family name is different). People create problems because they don't think and try to solve them when they appear. :sick:

Sorry Rachel, I will have to disagre with the following :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rachel

1 Survival �EThe human race has survived and become the dominant life form on this planet by being incredibly diverse. We have survived disasters, plagues, wars, weather and eco disasters by such diversity. The fact were still here proves it works. Homosexuality is just one of the many random factors that keeps us in existence.

---

As homosexuality exist among animals too, humans have no additional advantage. We are merely animals. Then, I don't see why homosexuality would have help us either survive or become dominant, for the reason mentioned above.

Quote:

---

2. Culture �EWithout the Homosexual community we wouldn�t have half the culture we do today. Though out history they have made up the bulk of our artists, actors, painters, tailors, sculptors, musicians, designers, directors and writers. Most of the new ideas and advancements in these areas have come from the creativity of homosexuals (A creativity that is unique to their mind set, the way they think).

---

Half of the culture is a gross exaggeration. Just a few % of the population is and has always been gay, in all times. There is no reason that this fraction of the population create a disproportionally high number of geniuses.

Besides, I don't think that homosexuals have such a unique mindset. It's just a hormonal factor. It has been more or less proved that homosexuality is caused by a lack of testosterone during pregnancy (especially the brain forming phase) for males, and an excess of testosterone during the same phase for female babies. Hormones have a powerful effect on the way the brain develops and specialises. Male hormones (testosterone) increases 3D imagination, orientation, logical thinking and semantic vocabulary capabilities. Female hormones (oestrogenes) increase sentence building and fluidity of the language, communication skills, emotion recognition (in faces, voice, etc.) and artithmetic capabilities (among others).

In addition, these hormones give us our sexual orientation. Foetuses which have had a strongly imbalanced male/female hormone influx have very high chances of becoming gay individuals. Statistics show that 90% of gay are male. This is also easily explained by the fact that it is easier for a mother to lack testosterone. Both men & women have both hormones in the blood, but in different proportion. Doing physical activities, for instance, increase the testosterone level (which helps building muscles). Stress also increase testosterone in blood. I am not 100% sure, but it seems logical to think that pregnant mothers physically active or suffering from high stress have higher chances of having lesbian girls or very "male-minded" boys. But the reverse in more common, as women tend to lack testosterone.

Anyhow, all this to say that homosexuality appears in the womb, cannot be changed back after the brain has been formed, and is not a genetic defect or abnormality, but is due to the hormones' effects on the brain. In other words, gay men think like women, and lesbians think like men. The only think you could prove about gay playing a disprportionally high role in the the world's culture, is that they replaced women, who often throughout the history have had less chances to be recognised for their works.

Well, then the problem resides in insurance companies or hospitals' policies, doesn't it.

Yes but as long as they can legally do this, they're not going to stop. It's expensive to insure people, they're not going to willingly insure extra persons.

Frankly, for visiting the emergency room, I don't see why they make such a fuss. Anyway, how can you prove whether you are the partner or a relative, or somebody else. In case of gay couples, they could just pretend to be a brother or sister. They are never going to ask for an ID, and even if they did, it's not written on it (just say you are half-sibling or step-sibling if they ask why the family name is different). People create problems because they don't think and try to solve them when they appear.

Your solution is for them to lie thereby risking legal action and prosecution? Anyway that won't work in complicated situations. Like if there are other family members present that do not accept the "spouse" and thereby won't let him/her take part. Or, for example, say there is a decision in care that needs to be made. If the "spouse" isn't recognized, it would then get made by the next closest relative.

Anyway these are just two examples. I'm sure there are many more problems that can be enumerated.

Where will it end?

Should a bisexual be allowed to marry both a woman and a man?

What if two siblings (outside of KY, TN, and WV--they already do that there) wanted to marry and promised to only adopt and not produce their own offspring?

"Yuck! That's disgusting!!!" Oh? But two men or two women marrying is okay.

I thought what Woodie Allen did was even sick -- to marry his own adopted daughter.

I also don't buy the argument that a certain percentage of animals are gay, so humans should be too. We don't base our morality on the animal kingdom. There are animals that kill and eat their young, and those that mate among siblings. So . . . why not us?

Mieboy, when I come to Japan, we definetely have to go drinking. :beer: XD

Rachel, I like your point of view... XD

Maciamo... And what about bi? How do you explain this? Don't forget about bi! They are homosexuals too... XD And what Rachel said is right... There was a book of 100 famous gay people. Don't remember now the people... XD Too much names for me... :D


Golgo, about Woody Alen, I think the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rachel

Homosexuality does have a function. :shock:

---

Wasn't that what I said? Why should I be shocked?

Quote:

---

Homosexuality is just one of the many random factors that keeps us in existence.

---

True. Though I would have said that in Perfect: has kept. Wouldn't say that it is absolutely necessary for the species' survival.

Quote:

---

Without the Homosexual community we wouldn�t have half the culture we do today. [...] Alan Turing the man who invented the computer was gay.

---

I agree with Maciamo here.
BTW, when it comes to the question who built the first computer I would go for Konrad Zuse. Not gay, AFAIK.

What Maciamo said about hormones during pregnancy is probably true. But genetical reasons can't be excluded yet. It is not yet certain what causes homosexuality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Golgo_13

Where will it end?

Should a bisexual be allowed to marry both a woman and a man?

---

Why not?

[QUOTE]What if two siblings (outside of KY, TN, and WV--they already do that there) wanted to marry and promised to only adopt and not produce their own offspring?[QUOTE]
Why not?

Quote:

---

"Yuck! That's disgusting!!!"

---

Disgusting? No! Strange, yes.

Quote:

---

I thought what Woodie Allen did was even sick -- to marry his own adopted daughter.

---

Don't see the problem.

Quote:

---

I also don't buy the argument that a certain percentage of animals are gay, so humans should be too. We don't base our morality on the animal kingdom. There are animals that kill and eat their young, and those that mate among siblings. So . . . why not us?

---

Nobody says humans should be. It's a simple fact that a certain percentage is gay.
The point was that somebody said homosexuality is not natural, which is an invalid argument since a lot of other animals beside humans can be homosexual (or bisexual). Nobody said because animals are, humans should be, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kama

Maciamo... And what about bi? How do you explain this?

---

Bisexuals are apparently more common than simple homosexuals. Let's say their brain is at the border betwen male and female, probably more towards the gay side, but not decisively so.

Quote:

---

And what Rachel said is right... There was a book of 100 famous gay people.

---

Yeah, and you can do a similar list with left-handed, epileptic, manic-depressive (check here for more) and exceptionally gifted people. All minorities, and all seemingly playing a disproportionate role in society. So many actors, musicans, athletes and artists (Picasso, Michelangelo, Da Vinci...) are left-handed, but also Bill Clinton, George Bush senior, Osama bin Laden (nice combination !), while Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln were both left-handed and epileptic, Gustave Flaubert and Vincent Van Gogh were also epileptic ; W.A. Mozart, Robert Schumann, Friedrich Nietsche, Victor Hugo and Winston Churchill were manic-depressive, and Napoleon was left-handed, epileptic and manic-depressive !

Interestingly, Alexander the Great, Julius Ceasar, Leonardo da Vinci, Vincent Van Gogh and Pablo Picasso were also gay. Actually, it is said of Ceasar that he was every woman's man and every man's woman, so "bi". Picasso was also bisexual. Alexander was Greek ; that explains all .:D (Btw, did you know that George Michael, also gay, was of Greek origin - which is partly why is was selected to compose the Athens Olympics songs).

Among the famous gays, there seem to be lots of rulers/military leaders, artists, actors, musicians, fashion designer, etc. Same giftedness as left-handed people, and naturally, lot's of gay are left-handed or vice-versa (=>see 5 examples above).

Manic-depressive, on the contrary, seem to become more prominent intellectuals (even in music, Mozart and Schumann have nothing to do with modern pop or rock singers), with dark or cynical phases (due to the "low").

More famous homosexuals here or here too and here for desert

What not add the Jews or Freemason as well (although that's not a biological abnormality, is it ? :D ).

Actually, the main concern of the law-makers is to legitimatize gay marriage will open a door for other minority groups. What about incest couples? If they are in love, they pay taxes and they don't bother other people, are they entitled to equal rights too ? In North America, we follow common law codes which based on precedence...

I don't think that is the main concern in the U.S. It is more of a religious/moral issue here.

True it may not be the main focus like religious/moral issue it dose open that door. And somebody would bring it up. Religiously-they are always going to have a problem with it in any faith for what was written in the bible and what they believe in. Morally- is the same way, whats morally right and whats morally wrong. which that "incest" part could fall under because morally...thats just wrong! :mad:
The gov. is not looking at the outcomes of someone who is gay, lesbian, etc who get togeather and nothing really can come out of that but then incest..could lead to diformities in children that they might have and etc....
This subject is like a side-coin when flipped it lands standing up because no one is ever going to let this drop....

[In my own opinion if your gay or whateva they should let them get married-they just like the average normal person getting by in the normal day of the life we live, who is the gov. to tell someone that they can't marry this person. Love is all that matters.]

~Adieu~

I would like to say sorry if I haven�t done a good job of getting myself across, of explaining my opinions. This isn�t something I find easy to do, ok!
I�m not used to this whole�thinking thing. Deep thoughts don�t come easily to me, in some ways I�m having to relearn how to think and feel now my brain is active again And being dyslexic to boot doesn�t help matters much.
I am trying. It�s not easy but I�m trying. Ok.

Maciamo. Point one. I�m not sure what the best way to explain my survival idea so you could understand it would be.
Maybe an example. Ok� Lets try this.

There are 3 children.
Their mother brings out 3 ice creams.
Vanilla, chocolate and strawberry.
Child 1 eats the chocolate, child 2 eats the strawberry and child 3 doesn�t eat any ice cream.
It turns out that the strawberry is poisoned.
Child 2 is taken to hospital.
That leaves Child 1 who had a 1 in 3 chance of picking the bad ice cream but didn�t because she liked chocolate.
And Child 3 who had no chance of picking the bad ice cream because she decided not to have anything to do with it.
Survival by diversity.

The human race has survived by branching out in lots of different ways, through genetics, society and choice. No particular way is right or wrong. We are a tree, we can lose branches and the trunk it�s self can be harmed but to kill us as a race you would have to pull us up by the roots. Which isn�t an easy thing to do because we spread out in so many directions.
Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Bi-sexuality, even Transsexuality are all valid paths in the over all survival of the human race. The more variation in who we are, what we are and what we do, the harder it is for anyone thing to put an end to us.

Point 2.Yes�. half our culture is an exaggeration if you take it literally. It was meant as a figure of speech, maybe I should have said �a significant Proportion�, it was late and I was tired ok.
And I didn�t say that they were all geniuses. What I was saying was they have made up the bulk of our creative community through out history. And as for not having a unique creative mindset ! I have yet to meet a single Heterosexual that can exhibit the same kind of creative processes as a Homosexual. I�ve meet plenty who have come close, but not one who could hit the nail on the head.

PS. Who the hell is Konrad Zuse ?

Gay Talk Show Host Opposes Gay Marriage

Al Rantel
Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2004

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling by four of the seven justices that the state must allow gays full marriage rights by May 17th raises a myriad of questions that some are afraid to ask in this time of political correctness run amok.

First and foremost of those questions is who said gays want to get married in the first place? Lets look at the numbers. The highest number of same sex households in America is ironically in Massachusetts, however even then it is under 2 per cent of all households. If gays make up five to ten per cent of the population as is often claimed, one would expect this number to be five times larger.

As distressing as the state of the American family is today with the high rate of divorce and adultery, the situation is far less stable among gays. This is not a slur against gays as individuals, but rather the reality of what occurs when you have what I call the all gas and no brake environment of male/male sexuality. I should know. I am a gay male.

To say that unfortunately the gay world is in a general state of hyper-sexuality that is not conducive to relationships which marriage was intended to foster is to put it mildly. Further, almost all of the issues the gay left claims it is justifiably concerned about like property, health, and financial partnership issues have already been dealt with by many states and can be dealt with through further legislation as needed. Such legal changes would encounter far less political opposition.

Why then the seeming obsession by the gay left and their activist judicial allies like the Massachusetts justices to force gay marriage on an unwilling public?

There is an answer.

Forcing a change to an institution as fundamental and established by civilization as marriage is deemed by gay activists and other cultural liberals as the equivalent of the Good Housekeeping seal of approval for homosexuality itself. The reasoning goes that if someone can marry someone of the same sex then being gay is as acceptable and normal as being short or tall.

While I certainly do not think people should be judged by who they choose to love or how they choose to live their lives, the cultural liberals in America are after more than that. They want to force others to accept their social view, and declare all those who might have an objection to their social agenda to be bigots, racists, and homophobes to be scorned and forced into silence.

The gay left has still not matured into a position of self-empowerment, but is still committed by and large to the idea that the rest of society must bless being gay in every way imaginable. This includes public parades in all major cities to remind everyone else of what some people like to do in their private bedrooms while in the same breath demanding to be left alone.

What more certifiable blessing than state sanctioned marriage of two men or two women, even for a group that has offered no indication that most even desire to enter into the kind of commitments that marriage ideally entails, or that serves the real purpose of marriage. Marriage exists in order to create a stable and structured environment for couples to reproduce and raise their offspring.

And so we have come to yet another chapter in the story of those who would portray themselves as victims in need of another sanction from the state. This time the price of social acceptance of gays is the redefinition of an institution that is thousands of years old and a cornerstone of society. Does that really seem like a wise and prudent choice for America to make at the wish of a handful of judges, and at the behest of those whose real goals are more political than anything else?


Al Rantel is a radio talk show host on Los Angeles' KABC.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rachel

PS. Who the hell is Konrad Zuse ?

---

German engineer who developed the first program controlled computer:
http://www.epemag.com/zuse/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Golgo_13

the redefinition of an institution that is thousands of years old and a cornerstone of society.

---

Hmm, maybe not so much of a redefinition as this guy thinks. Here is a nice link regarding this issue:
http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp12132003.html

Quote:
"First I recommend you read John Boswell's fine book Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press, 1980), in which he documents legally recognized homosexual marriage in ancient Rome extending into the Christian period, and his Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe (Villard Books, 1994), in which he discusses Church-blessed same-sex unions and even an ancient Christian same-sex nuptial liturgy."

*sigh* I really, really don't see why people have such a problem with people of the same sex marrying. :( You know, I am not a big advocate for marriage in general :p, but if I ever changed my mind, I would like the option to marry whoever I choose. :blush: (And really, is it anyone's business what goes on in the privacy of another's bedroom? :giggle:.)

BTW, interesting link I found:: http://pages.zoom.co.uk/lgs/sexualorientation.html

My stepdad sent me this nifty little cartoon by Tom Tomorrow:

And in case you can't read it, the quote under the title says, "After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence...a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization." --George W. Bush

The note in his hand at the end says, "TO DO: 1. Scapegoat-GAYS"

Take a good look at this : BBC News : Oregon county bans all marriages

Quote:

---

Confused by the twists and turns of the US gay marriage issue, Oregon's Benton County has decided to err on the side of caution and ban all weddings.

Until the state decides who can and cannot wed, officials in the county have said no-one can marry - even heterosexual couples.

They hit upon the plan to ensure that none of the county's 79,000 residents are subject to unfair treatment.

Gay marriage has proved controversial, deeply dividing US public opinion.

---

Great decision ! :spray: Others should follow in protest !

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0319-10.htm

ALRIGHT !! Strike one up for the good guys.

I oppose homosexual marriage, because this is unnature and abnormal in our bio-circle... feel bad for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by emperor

I oppose homosexual marriage, because this is unnature and abnormal in our bio-circle... feel bad for it.

---

And what about just homosexual love?

If I remember correct (and I do remember ;)) we were already talking about if it's biologicaly unnatural... and what means our bio-circle?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kama

And what about just homosexual love?

If I remember correct (and I do remember ;)) we were already talking about if it's biologicaly unnatural... and what means our bio-circle?

---

Bio-circle is simplified form 'biosphere'....:happy:
homosexual love? why not?
I love my father.. i love my brother.. i love my comrade.. i love my male teacher..
Yes, this is love... but, we can't get marriage only...
:spray:

Emperor:
I think, what Kama meant was not only platonic love, but also acting on it. IE relationships, tenderness, sex.
As Kama said, the natural side of it has already been discussed here. Have you read the thread?

i read, i read!! okok... :happy:

I am gonna have to disagree with this, and agree with Anti-Homosexual relation's. I personally do not hold grudges against it, freak out about it, or look down upon people who do it... I treat them the same, but I do not agree with it. As long as they do not try and push it on me, then I am fine. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by playaa

I am gonna have to disagree with this, and agree with Anti-Homosexual relation's. I personally do not hold grudges against it, freak out about it, or look down upon people who do it... I treat them the same, but I do not agree with it. As long as they do not try and push it on me, then I am fine. :p

---

But nobody tries to pushi it on you! :D For me it's just, live and let the others live... :-) Nothing else... XD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kama

But nobody tries to pushi it on you! :D For me it's just, live and let the others live... :-) Nothing else... XD

---

Then why not let men marry more than one woman, or let siblings or relatives marry? Live and let the others live?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Golgo_13

Then why not let men marry more than one woman, or let siblings or relatives marry? Live and let the others live?

---

Yeah, why not?
& why restrict polygamy to polygyny? Shouldn't have women the same right?

Sure, why not let people marry their own kids?

Woodie Allen did.

Wasn't that his stepdaughter, Woody Allen got involved with?
Anyway, as long as something happens consensually without harm to anybody else, why not?

Sorry, I'm late.. just discovered this topic. No time either to read everything, just across and diagonal reading. Sorry too if I repeat what has allready been said..

BUT what "howabe" said :
"The sole purpose in a human's life is the procreate. Homosexuals don't have children. Therefore they are a pointless defect that in no way leads to the furtherment of the human species."

is real bullsh....

Sorry ! Animal have that sole purpose, but really ? Why are they here in the first place ?

And, my dear HOWABE, believe me when I tell you that I know what I'm talking about : (because I was born a woman and an homosexual)

1) I'm not on earth for the sole purpose of multiplication and procreation. Absolutely not ! I would be extremely unhappy if I were...
2) As a woman, I have the most powerfull possibility to procreate WITHOUT ASKING YOU OR ANYONE ANYTHING, or not. I have that choice, whether I'm a lesbian or not.
3) Admittedly, gay women have more power in this field than men.
4) It does'nt stop the gay community to adopt CHILDREN THAT ARE IN NEED OF A HOME SO AS NOT TO DIE within the next days, weeks, months or year. That will also help a lot in the fields of the survival of the species...

I hope dear Howabe, that you have other goals in your life than just trying to make copies of yourself...

So, I'm wondering how you all feel about this subject. Do you agree with Mr. Bush that same-sex unions are sinful and should be banned? Do you think that homosexual couples should have the right to be legally married, same as heterosexual couples? Or you're not sure? Let's have a little discussion.

First, about Bush, no one should care about what he thinks, he should be away within months, so, what's the worry.

Then, as it has been said (by mieboy21 I think) the most important is to give love and care and respect. No need for official ties to do so.

Finally, who wants toi get married or pacsed, anyway ? Just to imitate "regular couples" ?

Not worth it.

Just to prove something to your partner ? That's not the proof he wants.
To feel more secure ? Well it might work for some. I know any kind of "official" ceremony, be it religious or civilian, would make me feel like entering into a jail, just because of the complications to get out again...

I'm sure many hetero couples would feel the same.

Good post, ascate! :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kirei_na_me

Good post, ascate! :-)

---

but it's all coming from inside

WINK smiliy if it exists......!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rachel

Ok lets get back to the matter at hand now.
I think most of us agree that gay couples should have the legal right to be together.
Correct?
The question now seems to be what kind of union would be best.
I think gay couples should have the same right to marry as non-gay couples

---

i don't get it.. why are people even arguing this? ofcourse they should get to marry!

what is it that makes gay people less human than straight? i just don't see it...

I think bush is fighting some personal issues.. like the "why do i get aroused when i look at www,weeeeforbigdicks,com?..no..no.. IT CANT BE!!"

"why not let someone marry more than one person"
why not indeed? aslong as all parties are happy with it, who gives a toss?

"why not siblings/father-daughter etc"
because the kids from these more often than not will have grave dissabilities of one sort or the other.. and that's just cruel to the kid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bossel

Wasn't that his stepdaughter, Woody Allen got involved with?
Anyway, as long as something happens consensually without harm to anybody else, why not?

---

Woody Allen got maried with his stepdaughter because he fell in love with her. (I?m not wether reciprocity was requested, though, but I think the answer is yes).

And love can be blind, happiness opens your eyes. Even the age difference in this case is not a matter to talk about. Those two are still together, no ? And it's been a long time..

Consanguinity (inbreeding) has nothing to do since the "daughter" was totally outside the family-related blood. She was adopted by Mia Farrow.

So good luck to them and a good day to you bossel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwistedMac

i don't get it.. why are people even arguing this? ofcourse they should get to marry!

Well, there is no obligation to this... they should get married if they think it's necessary. I've heard that in some countries, married people get tax reduction. Let's put taxes higher for married couples and see how many "weddings" we get...

what is it that makes gay people less human than straight? i just don't see it...
We are human allright. Nut for some humans, THEY believe that they ARE more human than others. The typical example was Hitler.

"why not siblings/father-daughter etc"
because the kids from these more often than not will have grave dissabilities of one sort or the other.. and that's just cruel to the kid.

---

Well, let's keep it to something slightly "reasonable" and let's be somewhat respectfull for the life to come.

Quote:

---

Well, there is no obligation to this... they should get married if they think it's necessary. I've heard that in some countries, married people get tax reduction. Let's put taxes higher for married couples and see how many "weddings" we get...

---

ofcourse i meant they should have the option >_< not that they/you(?) should be forced into it =P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TwistedMac

ofcourse i meant they should have the option >_< not that they/you(?) should be forced into it =P

---

weel, no one is worried, i'll never ever will be forced into anything, and all the less that kind of thing...