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
Sile: The other relevant point is what the existing legislation in various countries is. For example, in some very socially liberal countries, there may be no problem at all with someone who has had a sex change operation marrying someone of the opposite gender. It would also be determined by what legislation exists in each country to define a male and a female-if any at all. But this is wandering off thread a bit. I personally believe that if two people wish to form a recognised and legitimate union, so be it. But I have reservations about same sex couples raising children. I also agree with LeBroks last post.
 
Sile: The other relevant point is what the existing legislation in various countries is. For example, in some very socially liberal countries, there may be no problem at all with someone who has had a sex change operation marrying someone of the opposite gender. It would also be determined by what legislation exists in each country to define a male and a female-if any at all. But this is wandering off thread a bit. I personally believe that if two people wish to form a recognised and legitimate union, so be it. But I have reservations about same sex couples raising children. I also agree with LeBroks last post.

I like it how it is, and if we want to change , we need a referendum ( which will never get up in my life time).

There are gays who do not even want similar recognition ( for gay marriages) as married people, because they loose too many privileges
 
I personally believe that if two people wish to form a recognised and legitimate union, so be it. But I have reservations about same sex couples raising children. I also agree with LeBroks last post.

What about bisexuals? They may wanna form a union of three, because one part of their personality and sexuality is not fulfilled in a simple dual union. That way we could have mother father and himher.
 
That would be polygamy or polyandry.

So what? It's just a sentence in the law book - just like "homosexuality is forbidden" was. Why should we negate the human being and his right to love (without hurting anyone) just because we are not capable of that kind of love and we think that he should be pleased with 67% of his love life satisfied? Why be hypocrites, and draw the line there?
 
So what? It's just a sentence in the law book - just like "homosexuality is forbidden" was. Why should we negate the human being and his right to love (without hurting anyone) just because we are not capable of that kind of love and we think that he should be pleased with 67% of his love life satisfied? Why be hypocrites, and draw the line there?
Well gay marriage may be legal, but polygamy isn`t. Are you saying you would support a change to this law, Ike?
 
Hmm... good point!

What if it was two men and two women? What would we call that? (Besides a huge headache)
How about.. a group wedding :LOL:

No, I believe it is still seen as polygamy or polyandry, Sylvari...I never thought about that to be honest.
 
Bisexuals don't want threesomes, that's a false stereotype; they are just attracted to men and women. As most other people they fall in love with one person at the time. If straight people marry, they are still attracted to women in general, and see nice women walk at the street apart from their wife. Is that mere attraction a reason to extend marriage to more partners than the one they fall in love with? Then everyone would marry more times a week.
 
No matter their sexual orientation many people have found themselves falling in love with more than one person. If all parties agree and they write out a contract detailing everyone's responsibility to the relationship then why not let people marry more than one person? Love is not a finite resource.

Also- I was raised by two women and I am (mostly) sane and normal. What is the fear for kids who are raised by same sex couples?
 
Well gay marriage may be legal, but polygamy isn`t. Are you saying you would support a change to this law, Ike?
No, I'm wondering why would someone be bashing anti-gays for their backwardness, while doing the same thing to the other sexual groups?

What's the point of calling yourself liberal or open-minded and talking about all wrongs of the lines that had been drawn, when all you have done was drawing the line elsewhere. LOL - right on the mark where you find it convenient. It interests me why have liberals agreed to act like in this neo-religious way? It looks like same old "keep the bridge up down until I pass over it" story.


Bisexuals don't want threesomes, that's a false stereotype; they are just attracted to men and women. As most other people they fall in love with one person at the time.

You mean 'most' like 99%? What about the other 1% or to be more precise 70.000.000 people who may think different? You think they don't deserve their rights to live in threesomes, foursomes, multiplesomes or free-love?
 
OK, if three or more people agree to each other to live with each other in love, that's fine to me. It's their agreement to each other. My definition of what relation is acceptable is if all parties involved gave their consent to it.
Though I wanted to make clear the point that "threesome" is not a defining characteristic of "bisexual".
 
"Though I wanted to make clear the point that "threesome" is not a defining characteristic of "bisexual".

This truth is going to disappoint a lot of people.

In the end I think that any artificial constraint on how consenting adults conduct their relationships with other adults should not be the business of government. If three people want to marry each other, if two people of any gender want to be wed then it should not be up to governments to tell them they cannot.
 
Well now Ike, that`s a strong opinion, and I think, unjustly given.
I am not for bashing anyone, and I certainly have never accused anyone of being backward.
I may have said some opinions were poorly given, without anything to prove them reliable, or that throwing certain terms at people was unnecessary....is this bashing anyone for their opinion? I certainly don`t think so.
Regarding lines that had been drawn. There was a time when a line was drawn at the point where only men could vote. There was a time when a line was drawn that only white people could sit at the front of a bus. Were these lines good, should they have stayed in place? No, they were not and they needed redrawn in a better way..so they were. I can think of other lines but that would be rambling so these will suffice as examples.
Regarding gay marriage, the actual topic of this thread that was begun ten years ago, a new line has now been drawn there.
Whatever your opinion on the matter Ike, our society includes people who are gay or people who are transexual, or bi-sexual besides those who are heterosexual. Should we, who are heterosexual draw the lines of union so they stop at us?
I do not seek to bash you into changing your beliefs or opinions, they are yours to keep or not. I simply say, we should allow everyone the freedom to make their own choices, be it regarding their sexual orientation, their choice of religion, or their political views so long as it is not harmful to others, and in my opinion gay marriage does not threaten or devalue heterosexual marriage.
You talk about building walls and drawing up bridges. I speak of inclusion and sensible laws. We see things differently, Ike...and that is our privilege.
 
No, I'm not quite accusing you. Yes, you sometimes seem to be on "that" side, but I'm not quite familiar with your detailed opinion so I wouldn't go in there. I was talking more in general.

There was a time when a line was drawn that only white people could sit at the front of a bus. Were these lines good, should they have stayed in place? No, they were not and they needed redrawn in a better way..so they were.

1. That's exactly what I'm talking about. This is like giving the right to black people to sit in front of the bus, but not letting yellow. That is what I don't understand. If we've disregarded the Bible considering LBGT, why don't we do the same it the case of all sexual matters?

2. BTW the time of transhumans is coming soon. What will be our answer for the man with two penises that wants to be married with two females? Or a man who wants to be married to some kind of fem-dog or whatever?

p.s. Take it to the limit, and we're ending up with this:
http://www.slideshare.net/indiafuturesociety/slideshelf#
 
2. BTW the time of transhumans is coming soon. What will be our answer for the man with two penises that wants to be married with two females? Or a man who wants to be married to some kind of fem-dog or whatever?

p.s. Take it to the limit, and we're ending up with this:
http://www.slideshare.net/indiafuturesociety/slideshelf#
What limits? There are no limits, what about marrying a piece of your wife's finger that's what was left after eating her?
It is only in your scary imagination same as man with two penises, unlike gays and women who always existed, were always oppressed, and only recently got equal rights with men in this "sick" world.
If you fantasize, please keep it in realm of benefits or damage to society, otherwise you will always be lost in this new world, the post communist era. Things were easy in Soviet Block, people were happy, no cataclysms, and no gays either (according to local government there are still no gays in Sochi, lol). Now you have to deal with this plethora of behaviours of human nature. It is complicated and sick.

Did you ever hear about man who wanted two penises? Me neither, so lets skip these silly examples. On other hand we all know that every so often there are people of psychopathic tendencies. Do we need to spell out why such behaviors will never be accepted in any form? Causing suffering, torchering other people for own pleasure, often killing them in process, is highly damaging to any society. To the degree that we forbid such conduct even on our enemies or animals. Especially in today's "sick western world" where happiness of citizens, equality and inclusiveness are cherished.
That goes for the rest of your silly examples. The bottom line is if something is beneficial, neutral or negligibly negative it will be allowed in free society.

If you still miss the "good old fashion" family and their values, watch this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ew-law-bans-testifying-against-relatives.html
Nothing better than "good family" tradition of cutting stubborn wife's or daughter's nose off, or killing her all together for the old and traditional honor. In this old fashioned and traditional country 90% of these bestialities happen in family and extended family settings. Make you think why Taliban was so cruel and backward? Well, the taliban members came from these traditional families.
 
Last edited:
What limits? There are no limits, what about marrying a piece of your wife's finger that's what was left after eating her?

Dude :) I'm talking about consensual sexual relationships, with no harm on the other side. Where have you gone....

It is only in your scary imagination same as man with two penises, unlike gays and women who always existed, were always oppressed, and only recently got equal rights with men in this "sick" world.
If you fantasize, please keep it in realm of benefits or damage to society, otherwise you will always be lost in this new world, the post communist era. Things were easy in Soviet Block, people were happy, no cataclysms, and no gays either (according to local government there are still no gays in Sochi, lol). Now you have to deal with this plethora of behaviours of human nature. It is complicated and sick.
I don't know how things have been in Soviet era, and I don't care about Soviets. Never had here been a denial that gays don't exists. There's been a consensus that their doing is sexually deviated, but they were not persecuted, unlike for example USA from where we heard hideous stories about electro-convulsive therapy...

Did you ever hear about man who wanted two penises? Me neither, so lets skip these silly examples.
Silly? You seem to be in some form of denial here.

On other hand we all know that every so often there are people of psychopathic tendencies. Do we need to spell out why such behaviors will never be accepted in any form? Causing suffering, torchering other people for own pleasure, often killing them in process, is highly damaging to any society.
What's this got to do with any my text? Have I advocated violence anywhere up?

The bottom line is if something is beneficial, neutral or negligibly negative it will be allowed in free society.
OK, so what with polygamy?

If you still miss the "good old fashion" family and their values, watch this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ew-law-bans-testifying-against-relatives.html
Nothing better than "good family" tradition of cutting stubborn wife's or daughter's nose off, or killing here all together for the honor. In this old fashioned and traditional country 90% of these bestialities happen in family and extended family settings. Make you think why Taliban was so cruel and backward? Well, the taliban members came from these traditional setting.

Wanting to call things the right name doesn't make someone a taliban or terrorist. Acting like one does.

Those are just some (probably half-impotent) sexual perverts that are hiding under the mask of what's traditional and conservative. Yes, the concept of their society lets them mask better and more easily but it' not the reason to break it and destroy their country. It would be more proactive to concentrate on helping them make violators more transparent and their judicial system up to the task.
 

This thread has been viewed 380570 times.

Back
Top