I have struggling views.
My opinion says against because they cant have babies naturally like heterosexuals can.
But there's people pure in spirit which are for it.
What about you?
What's your stance on Gay Marriage
5,412 Views | 55 Replies
At 5/25/14 08:27 AM, Korriken wrote: I couldn't personally care less what others do, as long as they leave me out of it and don't try to rub it in my face.
I'm anti gay parade, but what people do in their bedroom is their own affair.
Actually, I'm anti everything parade, except Mardi Gras, but that's just passing a good time.
Well, as long as the parade isn't throwing an ideology in my face, I'm ok with it.
Oh i absolutely agree with you. Its annoying having to slap everyone in their face with those parade "Half naked" slap. Might aswell make heterosexual parade aswell, uncomfortable either way :/
At 5/25/14 09:07 AM, Elitistinen wrote: My stance is people can have the right to do whatever they want.
Ok. Stealing and killing allowed :P
Just legalize it already. There's really no rational argument against it, at all.
Teacher, goth, communist, cynic, alcoholic, master swordsman, king of shitpoasts.
It's better to die together than to live alone.
Sig by Decky
At 5/25/14 09:36 AM, Elitistinen wrote:At 5/25/14 09:17 AM, Repsi wrote:People do that all the time. Can you stop everyone on the world? No, then shut up.At 5/25/14 09:07 AM, Elitistinen wrote: My stance is people can have the right to do whatever they want.Ok. Stealing and killing allowed :P
So by allowing it then. HAHAHAHA!
Great, let's prohibit infertile straight couples from marrying, then, too.
Why did you make a new thread about this? You know there's already threads about it. You posted in one.
At 5/25/14 12:52 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: Great, let's prohibit infertile straight couples from marrying, then, too.
Why did you make a new thread about this? You know there's already threads about it. You posted in one.
Oh i've heard that argument before. To answer they can, even olf people because the majority are gifted by giving children. So the unfortunate one who cant are still allowed. But gay's in general dont have that gift to make one :)
Well. Just wondered, thats all :)
Repsi/RaidenRocks1/Jinglani2, if you really wondered, you would have read through the thread you already posted in.
Gay Marraige...hmmm....do I support it?
YES. Same sex marriage is perfectly fine!
just call me "Jay", thanks.
Profile Image by https://twitter.com/Momochii_art
At 5/25/14 04:58 AM, Repsi wrote: I have struggling views.
My opinion says against because they cant have babies naturally like heterosexuals can.
But there's people pure in spirit which are for it.
What about you?
You do know that some heterosexuals couples can't get pregnant/get someone pregnant either, right? Does that mean they shouldn't get married? It's non sense to say "it should be illegal because they can't have kids".
Gay marriage should be legal and some countries allow it too. Being bisexual, homosexual, hetrosexual, pansexual, transgender, asexual ect... doesn't involve other people then people in the relationship with ___. Neither one is superior to the other. We are all created equal by nature, even in God eyes (assuming there is a God). So, why must we label ourselves base on our sexuality? Being a hetrosexual doesn't make you better then the next person.
It's stupid to label yourself a "hetrosexual" to judge and deny another sexuality just because you're a hetrosexual.
I my not be gay, pansexual, asexual ect..(i'm a hetrosexual) but i don't judge anyone on there sexuality. There sexuality is theirs and only effects them.
(sorry for poor grammar and/or spelling mistakes)
At 5/25/14 12:58 PM, Repsi wrote:At 5/25/14 12:52 PM, Sense-Offender wrote: Great, let's prohibit infertile straight couples from marrying, then, too.Oh i've heard that argument before. To answer they can, even olf people because the majority are gifted by giving children. So the unfortunate one who cant are still allowed. But gay's in general dont have that gift to make one :)
Why did you make a new thread about this? You know there's already threads about it. You posted in one.
Well. Just wondered, thats all :)
Think on what you just said.
Anyone, including homosexual have the capabilities to get someone pregnant and be pregnant. They have the same equipments as any other hetrosexuals. There is modern tech. where a women can get pregnant by a doctor inserting sperms into the uterus, and men can jerk off in a cup and donate it to ___ so a women can have babies.
At 5/25/14 04:58 AM, Repsi wrote: My opinion says against because they cant have babies naturally like heterosexuals can.
I agree; everyone who gets married must be required to have at least one kid, and nobody who is sterile may get married. Ban vasectomies too.
It was long overdue to be legalised. 2 people who love each other should be able to get married if they want.
???-2004?=dark ages, 2005?=atomic betty era, 2006=red dwarf era, 2007-2009=newgrounds era, 2009-2014= anime era,
What have I done with my life?
At 5/25/14 04:58 AM, Repsi wrote: My opinion says against because they cant have babies naturally like heterosexuals can.
What the fuck does this have to do with marriage
that they shouldn't do it.
instead, they should just get rid of the institution of marriage which is obsolete in the modern world. that way there would be equal rights and get actual social progress at the same time
Its only rape if you say no.
Say no to rape.
At 5/26/14 09:03 AM, kakalxlax wrote: that they shouldn't do it.
instead, they should just get rid of the institution of marriage which is obsolete in the modern world. that way there would be equal rights and get actual social progress at the same time
I hate it when people ignorantly throw this out there. There are tons of reasons government marriage exists. No marriage would lead to endless fights over property and other rights. The granting of these rights without an opt in would just be plain shitty.
At 5/26/14 10:04 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
I hate it when people ignorantly throw this out there. There are tons of reasons government marriage exists. No marriage would lead to endless fights over property and other rights. The granting of these rights without an opt in would just be plain shitty.
why?
first i see the need to split all you have with other person to be obsessive, but if for some reason you feel the need to it, having a higher control over your will, or having any other kind of document that doesn't imply a responsibility to the other person should more than suffice.
plus dna testing to know if your kids are really yours (other of the main reasons for marriage)
Its only rape if you say no.
Say no to rape.
Honestly, I'm 50/50 on this. Once you think about this, the devil made homosexuals. But when they get together they express true love. But isn't the devil against true love? Or, any love? So really, its one giant backfire. However, the reason why I'm 50/50 on this is because maybe their is a better reason that we can't think of or understand.
To each their own.
Who am I to get in the way of two dudes or dudettes that like to tie the knot?
Who cares and let them wed. I really don't see why it's a big deal. Oh wait, because of people out their who want to tell others how to live. Silly me, how could I forget about people like that.
lol
Oh look, nipple rings
At 6/6/14 11:09 PM, Chief-Astronot wrote: Honestly, I'm 50/50 on this. Once you think about this, the devil made homosexuals. But when they get together they express true love. But isn't the devil against true love? Or, any love? So really, its one giant backfire. However, the reason why I'm 50/50 on this is because maybe their is a better reason that we can't think of or understand.
Think of it like this; the Bible doesn't condemn Gay Marriage; it condemns the existence of gay people. People protesting gay marriage due to their religion are getting it wrong, they should be protesting a lack of public execution of gays for their religion.
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
As far as public policy goes, I can't think of a persuasive reason for the government to endorse gay marriage. Naturally conjugal couples (i.e., couples made up of one man and one woman) represent one of the most basic elements of the foundation of civilization. The custom of marriage exists -- or at least ought to exist -- to provide a framework by which to regulate the fidelity and stability of those unions. The government's involvement in these unions can take a variety of forms; but the most basic purpose is to extend state-sanctioned legitimacy to a union whose public aspect is both practically and symbolically useful to society.
None of this is to say that homosexuals ought to be persecuted. They're certainly free to pursue their pleasures in private, and perhaps even to exhibit certain aspects of their lives in public. But I don't see any injustice that arises from denying homosexuals the state's official sanction of their unions, as a matter of public policy, statute, law, etc.
Yurgenburgen,
I suppose my one good reason to abstain from extending public legitimacy to gay marriage is that I can't think of many compelling reasons to extend public legitimacy to licentiousness. My intention, for the moment, isn't to sermonize about the immorality of homosexuality; I'm simply not convinced by the libertarian position that private morality is unconnected to public virtue. Moreover, I think a slippery slope condition does in fact become a likelihood when we entertain the possibility of publicly legitimizing various forms of license. The fuzzy logic underlying the argument in favor of gay marriage -- often colloquialized as "love is love" -- cannot easily avoid being used for other forms of license, such as polyamory and pederasty. Nor, apart from our own "stodginess" and "backwards conservativeness," is there much that can, or should, perhaps, prevent us from seeking to implement laws designed to include rather than exclude even more exotic expressions of "love," like necrophilia and zoophilia. In every one of these alternative forms of license, we can, without straining too hard, find ways to accommodate their practitioners using the bare-minimum standard of libertarianism: consent (or when necessary, reducing consent to a mere non-issue).
In the end, though, I just don't see how any injustice is committed by not extending public legitimacy to gay marriage; or for that matter by not extending public legitimacy to heterosexual marriage. Neither gay nor straight couples have a natural right to have their unions positively sanctioned by the state. But if we are going to have a policy that recognizes a particular form of marriage, I think it makes better sense to extend such recognition to natural, not unnatural or licentious, unions.
I'm fine with gay marriage. The only thing that bugs me is when people act like its going to cause the fucking apocalypses. Hell if you looks at history homosexual relationships were all over the place.
And when people say that gays should burn in hell and their supporters should to I'd tell them this.
"Hey you remember that line in the bible that says treat others on to how you want to be treated? Whatever happened to that? And what happened to being loyal to someone who captures your heart? You say thats satan? Well what about all the couples that get married a week after they meet? Or the women and men who have divorced over 5 times in the last 3-9 years? They can get married all they want and people say its fine. But when two men who are actually faithful and trusting of one another and have been together long enough and finally tie the knot, and they get picket signs and death threats."
I'm not speaking for god nor am I saying what he means. What I think is this. He loves all of his creations. So I can't even imagine how he feels about them not being able to share their love with one another because others are so wrapped up in his book and use his words to prove a point.
At 6/7/14 06:46 PM, InsectGadget wrote:
Being Gay is not normal, it's an adaptive trait, like Paedophilia or the likes.
So tell me this, if Gays are to be tolerated and treated 'Normally' can I treat a man who Molested a young boy Normally?
What does it take to permanently ban you? You seriously are trying to compare sexual orientation to pedophilia? The former is something you can't change like your sex or gender, the other is brought up by multiple environmental factors, illegal, and brings undue harm unto someone. You really need to get the fuck out of here.
Spooky,
Leo Strauss once observed that although agreement may produce peace, it cannot produce truth. I understand that greater numbers of people in Western civilization are coming to accept the morality of homosexuality -- especially the young, which is unsurprising, given that they have been the target of a powerful media and cultural campaign (literature, television shows, songs, commercials, Internet advertisements, school curricula, etc.) to see homosexuality as something celebratory. It's hard to imagine any formerly criticized set of habits not gaining in status with the assistance of that sort of sustained indoctrination. So while the shift in the numbers of gay marriage supporters may be important for policy strategies, I don't find it to be influential when it comes to philosophic investigation. I hold that position not only over the question of gay marriage, but also over the question of pederasty. Whether the masses support the one or oppose the other makes little difference to me.
My reason for categorizing homosexuality as a form of license is because I view it as a freely chosen deviation from nature for the purpose of gratifying the wrong sorts of pleasures. My conception of nature is largely teleological, focusing on form and function. Homosexuality is freely chosen because, even if certain people are genetically predisposed toward homosexual impulses, they ultimately choose whether or not to act on those impulses. But to bring this back to the policy question of gay marriage, I simply do not see any compelling reason for endorsing homosexual practices via the law. You suggest that "allowing one form of sexuality to have marriage and another to not have marriage can be viewed as a form of injustice." I have a couple of responses to this: 1) the distinction between policy (public) and non-policy (private), and 2) the problem of inclusivity.
(1) In the first place, homosexuals in my country (the United States) are free to unite sexually with each other. They are even free to marry each other, provided they can find a church that will sanction their unions. These activities all occur within the non-policy or private arena. What homosexuals are pushing for, however, is validation of their unions in the policy or public sphere of life; and the only defense they can provide in favor of their position is one based on either consent or love. But it's not clear to me why either of these things ought to satisfy a single-criterion requirement for securing public endorsement. When I bake a loaf of homemade bread and consensually exchange it for a basket of homegrown potatoes from my neighbor, I engage in a private, non-policy act that has no need and no argument for being codified into the public law. Consent alone is not enough for distinguishing worthy from unworthy policy matters.
(2) The danger in choosing to view the importance of human relations solely or primarily through the lens of mere sexuality -- i.e., sexuality divorced from any higher purpose other than an "expression of love" -- is that doing so undermines the remaining constraints on other forms of sexuality that allow people to express their love in more daring or exotic ways. Not too long ago, the pro-pederasty organization NAMbLA held membership as well as voting power in the International Gay and Lesbian Association (IGLA). They were finally excluded from LGBT events, however, when their membership became a political liability. But it's significant that NAMbLA still exists and that its website hasn't been effaced from the Internet. That is because NAMbLA's members rightly understand that the legal age limits we impose on sexual activity are largely arbitrary. Why make the cutoff at 16 or 18 and not 13 or 21? The objection against pederasty becomes even wobblier when we reflect on the fact that we now instruct children as young as 11 and 12 years of age in the proper use of prophylactics, oral sex, and mutual masturbation. In some schools in the United States, variations on these sexual instructions are introduced as early as kindergarten. Years ago, when I was taking coursework to earn a teaching credential, one of my instructors, a principal, told the class about an incident at his elementary school in which two six-year-old first-grade boys were engaged in mutual oral sex behind a classroom. The instructor, however, was quick to insist that he and his staff did not criticize the boys for the sexual act itself, but instead said that the school grounds were an inappropriate location for it. We have done nearly everything in our power to make children into sexual beings, and yet we continue to pretend that they are somehow incapable of "meaningfully" consenting to pursue sexual gratification as they see fit.
As for necrophilia and zoophilia, consent merely becomes a non-issue. A corpse, as you correctly pointed out, simply cannot consent. The grief experienced by living relatives, however, is irrelevant. I'm sure there are many parents who become emotionally distraught when their child informs them of his homosexual behavior; but we don't allow the parents' grief to prevent their child from gratifying his homosexual desires. In the case of zoophilia, we do not seek the consent of our dogs, for example, when we feed them, exercise them, restrict their freedom of movement, or even castrate them. So I don't see any reason for seeking their consent before engaging in sexual activity with them.
Yurgenburgen,
There is more to my written claim than what you quoted. Ultimately, the activities that define homosexuality as homosexuality are freely chosen. A person may be genetically predisposed toward murder or kleptomania, but we don't accuse them of immorality until they carry out the acts that define those conditions in practice.
I support gay marriage, because it's something that doesn't effect other people. Divorce is shown to be the most devastating thing that can happen to a person and while I don't know the divorce rates of gays, I think legalizing it would probably help to sanctify marriage as it is.
You know the world's gone crazy when the best rapper's a white guy and the best golfer's a black guy - Chris Rock
Gay marriage is immoral all it will lead to is gay divorce, adoption of children turning them gay furthering the homosexual agenda and the ruining of perfectly designed rooms!
At 6/8/14 10:40 AM, yurgenburgen wrote:At 6/8/14 10:36 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Gay marriage is immoral all it will lead to is gay divorceBut surely you are in favour of gay divorce since you don't want gays being married in the first place.
adoption of children turning them gayGay marriage does not by definition include the right of gay couples to adopt children.
furthering the homosexual agendaThere is no "homosexual agenda" beyond the struggle for equal rights you zealot.
if you could tell it was all satire you should have been able to tell when I talked about interior designed rooms, in all honesty I dont give a shit either way about it anymore, I've decided on the philosophy if it doesn't directly effect me I don't care, its the easiest way to live.
At 6/7/14 04:24 PM, Devsonx wrote: In the end, though, I just don't see how any injustice is committed by not extending public legitimacy to gay marriage; or for that matter by not extending public legitimacy to heterosexual marriage. Neither gay nor straight couples have a natural right to have their unions positively sanctioned by the state. But if we are going to have a policy that recognizes a particular form of marriage, I think it makes better sense to extend such recognition to natural, not unnatural or licentious, unions.
Well the government can't say keep weddings from happening. They can't go to a wedding and say "you can't do this". The reason Gay Marriage needs to be legalized is for legal reasons, namely those which concern spouses. The main issue is healthcare along with taxes and the like. That's the central problem.
The other issue is sexual deviancy which seems to be what you have a problem with. The problem here is that "sexual deviancy" is arbitrary and imposed by religion. There's no logical reason as to why homosexuality is bad, unless you get into the closet homosexual slippery slope argument of "if we allow gays to get married then everyone will turn gay".
The other issue therefore becomes the other parts of Christian moral's that are overlooked. A similar debate occurred when divorce was legalized outside of adultery and you don't seem to be complaining about that. Or hell what about "open marriages" where married couples have sex with other people? Should the state then invalidate their marriage? You'd have to set up commissions which evaluate each marriage to make sure that they're "moral". Do we want drug addicts marrying and having kids while they're still taking drugs? Do we want alcoholics to do the same? What about the parts of the Bible which condemn race mixing, should we then go after interracial couples? The sole one dimensional focus on gay people is outright discrimination against them.
"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.
