The Gay Marriage Controversy

How do you feel about gay marriage?

  • I feel it is wrong and should be banned.

    Votes: 62 26.1%
  • I feel homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples.

    Votes: 152 63.9%
  • Undecided

    Votes: 24 10.1%

  • Total voters
    238
sennevini

see u guys are saying exactly what almost every american would say in 1950 gay marriage are u kidding me that is just wrong. I think about gay marriage as wrong just like u think a 10 year old having a relationship with a 40 yea old is wrong. u cant just say that is unrelated. Would if the 5 or 10 year old agree's would u still think it is wrong i think u would.

some people think their being all tolerant when they don't realize they just have diff rules on what is tolerant and what is not. I am against gay marriage that does not make me hateful and un tolernt i just have a different opinion on what the limits should be.
 
Well, I don't suppose you are very hateful. We have a different limit on what to tolerate and what not. That's ok, we're humans.


You are right, a 5 to 10 year old can say "yes", but is it really an agreement? Does it know what it is doing?
It is too young to be in a "real" relationship. It needs to grow, to learn about everything. Only when entering adulthood
one is assumed to possess some sense of knowledge about the world, people, a lot of things. Before that, a child should not be involved in things it does not know enough about. In that way only the adult takes advantage of the child. That's immoral. You can't let a child marry; all kind of laws are connected; for example, how would such a couple buy a house? It's impossible; laws make difference between adults and children.


Same for animals. That doesn't work. Laws are for people. Animals can't agree, can't sign documents, can't earn money. How can it look after it's "partner"?


These things don't work and won't work. Therefore it is to me a flaw to say that legalising gay marriage will lead to legalising these things.


I can say, in my country gay marriages are held since 2001; since then, only 2% of all marriages each year is between gay people. That leaves 98% of the marriages between men and women. A constant percentage, which I think is quite stable. I don't think it ruptures society. You might say, "if all people get gay married, human race dies off", but this isn't happening. Moreover, I think there are more straight couples consciously without children, or single people, than married gay couples. What about them? Can you blame them for consciously not starting a family?
I think people are not very changeable, and the majority of society will start families in a traditional way, anyway. So I don't think it's lot of a problem.


Do you know the Edith Windsor case in New York? She and her female partner were together for at least 40 years. Then, becoming a widow, The state asked her to pay very much money to inherit from her longlife partner, who had designated her to inherit from her. If she was a man, Edith wouldn't have to pay anything - or a lot less. I believe that's unfair to her. Such things in the law are exactly the reason that support for "marriage equality" arose.
 
These things don't work and won't work. Therefore it is to me a flaw to say that legalising gay marriage will lead to legalising these things.
Well said.
 
i dont ever remember saying gay marriage will led to those things. all i was trying to say is just because i am agianst gay marriage does not make me hateful i just have a diff opinion on the limits and what is right.

As an American with most of my ancestry going back to settlers who came in 1630 and pre 1750's(i dont feel apart of any other country since it has been over 250 years). I think the biggest parts of being a true american is loving baseball and being all for equal rights. Our country in many ways was founded by very strong Evangelical Christians who belived in equal rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, allowing people to make their own decisions. So to say protestant christainty makes u more un tolerant of people and not about equal rights is not true. I am not saying any of u said that but i have heard that before.

Also i have noticed in the libearl mind set it ignores many morals. Just look at family guy(which seriously i think it is so sick which makes it not funny that is why i dont watch it) and compare that to TV show's before the 1960's. For school i had to watch i movie about girls getting pregnant in highschool and it crtized the town they grew up in because it was conservative and religious and was very against these girls. well what is so bad bout not wanting them having sex not in marriage or acting like hors. I think with modern libearlism from the 1960's has brought alot of bad morals into the modern western society.

Also they are against Americas wars in the mid east just because it reminds them of vietnam and becuse it also reminds them of american patriotism and power. What did america do wrong we took down saddam a dictator who was a threat to his people and our world(does not matter if we did not find weapons of mass destruction). Also we fought to stop terrisom in the mid east which hurt their people's and us. when u think about america did not have bad intentions and the war was just the only thing is was it worth it money wise.

What did we do bad in veitnam we fought against the expansion of soviet supported communism which was a huge threat to the whole world. we fought for the saftey and freedom of south vietnam. what did we do wrong we where fighting for justice yet hippies and my teachers in school pose america as the aggressor. The reason i bhelif they where aginst that is hatred towards the american cowboy type of character and western power.

same reason why Conservative are against helping the envirmont i dont see what is wrong with that it only helps but i dont like going looney and calling all of humanite evil and other radical stuff. the reason conservatives are anti envirmont is because it has a hippie feel to it and seems anti human at times. I think both conservatives and libearls have their biased and have mistakes on their ideas of a good socety. we basically agree put we dis agree on what the limits are.
 
It must have been unpleasantly for a generation who did it's duty for country and society, for example WO II and wars you mention to keep the world free from evil to be confronted by a 60's youth criticizing them and starting a laissez-faire life.
Yes, in that time a lot of liberal ideas went too far. I don't object sexual intercourse between high school people, but it has to be done with a feeling of responsibility, as to say: don't have sex with everyone if you already are in a relationship, and use protection for your own sake.



But the time of very free moral, that's over now. I was raised mostly in the 90's. That was a nice time, alas already 20 years ago. From the 80's on, upbringing was more focused on "the family" than "the self". Liberal ideas were profound, but there was a sense of responsibility which was taught to me. My parents forbid me what was abundant in their generation; drugs, drinks and rock and roll. Thank god they forbid me.
Now, I'm in my 20s and what now? Time of plenty is over, it's time of "crisis". I and my generation (maybe not everyone) realize it's crisis and it needs to be solved. We worry about jobs etc. That also brings a feeling of responsibility with it. We know we can't have everything, like a nice car.


Your generation - I assume you grew up in the '50s? - has done a lot to save the world, to stand for values of liberty etc. But why can't a sense of duty go hand in hand with a sense of liberalism? It's important to have both. Under duty and moral behaviour I understand being a nice person to your neighbour, family and friends, do the best you can, keep an eye on people who might have troubles and such things, and defend your values. Under liberalism I understand having the freedom to choose your house, job, studies, partner, to vote, to freely speak without getting sent to Siberia. Gay marriage is something which I view as a part of liberalism. It's not immoral in my eyes, no, marriage is the ultimate moralizing of gay people. They are in that way totally able to be involved in society, and are encouraged to marry, and having a lifelong partner. It's better than saying it's immoral, because that will lead to people having sneaky, secret relationships, which are not healthy for everyone.
The most important thing in marriage is responsibility toward each other. It's serious business. I think people who want to marry are fully aware of that, and that's something you shouldn't forget.
 
it seems we agree on everything except gay marriage. so now we understand each other. i grew up in the 2000's i am 15. i am not in my 50's i guess it might seem i am by my opinion on some things. how do u think i have so much time to make long posts i dont have as many responbilities.
 
Glad to see France joining the "gay marriage" club.Homosexual couples are not going to disappear whether they're allowed to get married or not.
 
Jesus was gay!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's pretty obvious Jesus was gay.

Ok, first let's assume for argument's sake, he did actually exist.
Yeah, I know he was the son of god or whatever but he was human too and unless he was born with a deformity (limp-dickism ?), he would have had the natural physical human tendency to want sex.

Ok, he never ever gets married which was extremely unusual in his day for any man to never have been married by the time he died (at about 30yrs old, according to most scholars.)

Going by the Bible, He spends most of his adult life surrounded mostly by men, and all that it talks about is how he goes fishing with his buds all the time and hangs out with his guy friends but nothing about him meeting women or hooking up with women.

Then, when he is about to die, and knowing that he is about to die, he spends his last night on earth drinking wine, surrounded by men and his guy friends.
No women, no strippers, nothing.:shocked:

If I was Jesus and I knew I was about to die the next day, I would tell Peter to go fetch me that Mary Magdeline b*tch ( you know, the former prostitute according to most Christians), and have her show me some of her skillz because who the hell wants to be crucified and die a lonely 33yr. old (?) virgin?

and dont give me that "he was the son of god and had better things to do with his life", B.S...... what?, the guy can raise the dead but he cant get laid?:confused:

and going by this view, probably most of the apostles were queer as folk too. ( never married, no mention of women, liked to be around men more than women, etc...)

I think even at one time , it may have been either Peter or Paul, who said he was "married to God"-:LOL:. ...............what a loser!

Sorry, but God cant give you what a woman can give you!
 
Question in australia is , If gay marriages are allowed then de facto gay relations are also ( similar to man- woman defacto) allowed . If rules apply for man-women defacto then same rules for both sex de factos relationship- End result, gays will not get social services relief if both are not working ( only one can get it ) same as normal defacto/marriages. This is upsetting to the gay community as income is halved ( loss that normal marriages have had for many many years) .

But the other issue is, what constitutes a gey defacto relations? .....Are males ( or females) living together as they leave home early classified as defacto? The Government are grinning all the way ,as they stop paying social services money to the unemployed who live with either, their parents, are married or in a defacto relationship.
 
Sile: I can't see the Federal Government asking for a mandate to change the Marriage Act to permit same sex marriages, can you? As the ACT found out recently, only the Federal Government can make laws in relation to marriages, States cannot. For them to able to do so would mean a national referendum to change the Constitution, and the Australian electorate, historically, rejects proposed changes to the Constitution.
 
Sile: I can't see the Federal Government asking for a mandate to change the Marriage Act to permit same sex marriages, can you? As the ACT found out recently, only the Federal Government can make laws in relation to marriages, States cannot. For them to able to do so would mean a national referendum to change the Constitution, and the Australian electorate, historically, rejects proposed changes to the Constitution.

agree with you.
Knowing Australians......to get a vote to change on any part of the constitution would be a miracle. The best was the vote to become a republic ( 53 to 47% was the vote). Anyway a failed vote , means a minimum of a decade wait for another vote for that topic.
Last month they cancelled all the gay marriages recently because in the constitution of Australia it states a marriage can ONLY be between a Man and a Women. It does not say a marriage is between 2 persons/people.
 
Last month they cancelled all the gay marriages recently because in the constitution of Australia it states a marriage can ONLY be between a Man and a Women.
Does Australian constitution define who is a man and who is a woman?
 
Does Australian constitution define who is a man and who is a woman?

Unsure, you mean a genital test?

I know someone who I worked with had no distinguishing sex organs ( i forget the term ), born man in a women's body, had a sex change............he/she ( still confuses me ) was not allowed to marry.
 
Does Australian constitution define who is a man and who is a woman?
No, the Constitution doesn't define what a man or a women is. In Westminster legal systems, where a law does not define something, the common law and generally accepted view of the people is accepted. In this particular case, this would mean that a person born with male reproductive organs is a man, a person born with female reproductive organs is a woman. In those exceptionally rare cases where a person is born with neither or both sets of reproductive organs, possibly the dominant (most developed) organs would be the determinant. If all else fails, the matter would be decided by a court.
 
Sile: That person may not have had any external sex organs, but could have had, for example, a womb and fallopian tubes, and would therefore be ruled as a woman. If a person had a sex change operation, and was ruled, for example, medically a female, I think they are permitted to marry. Do you have any further thoughts on this?
 
Sile: That person may not have had any external sex organs, but could have had, for example, a womb and fallopian tubes, and would therefore be ruled as a woman. If a person had a sex change operation, and was ruled, for example, medically a female, I think they are permitted to marry. Do you have any further thoughts on this?
Let me ask bluntly so I understand. If person is born a man and undergoes operation and hormonal treatment and at the end looks more like a woman than a man. Can this person be classified as a woman?
 
I thought we were past the whole Freudian animal analysis angle
 
I for one was born looking like a girl. Nowadays most people say I look like a woman as well. It's not a bad thing, girls find it very attractive actually (large eyes, big lips, soft yet defined chin, great athletic body-type). I also have a very manly packet as well, I'm deffinetly anatomically male. But the world is changing from what I see, people can acquire these good looking features via plastic surgery and other methods that take away from the 1-2% of elite people that are legitimately good-looking (3/4 of my old high school friends are fakes now, that's for sure.) as for me, I just continue working out.
 
Sile: That person may not have had any external sex organs, but could have had, for example, a womb and fallopian tubes, and would therefore be ruled as a woman. If a person had a sex change operation, and was ruled, for example, medically a female, I think they are permitted to marry. Do you have any further thoughts on this?

As far as I remember ( as the person resigned 3 years ago ), they had a sex change due to having smallish/miniture male parts but having breasts as she/he aged. after sex change, she is now classified as a woman, but cannot marry because born as a male. ( due to genitals seen at birth )
 
, she is now classified as a woman, but cannot marry because born as a male. ( due to genitals seen at birth )
I'm not sure if civil rights can be written the way to reconcile this duality. I think for the law to be transparent and easy to follow the latest classification should matter only.
 

This thread has been viewed 380596 times.

Back
Top