Geenberg wrote:I don't like it and it isn't good for the development for the country because there will be less children for the generations to come
Perhaps in your infinitely shrinking wisdom, you can explain to me how there will be less children.
Advertisement
by Tekania » Mon May 16, 2011 9:02 am
Geenberg wrote:I don't like it and it isn't good for the development for the country because there will be less children for the generations to come
by SpectacularSpectacular » Mon May 16, 2011 9:03 am
Aestalis wrote:SpectacularSpectacular wrote:
And if the 'objective' definition offered by the church is that lightning is gods rage? Shall society adhere to such nonsense in those cases?
The difference here is that a church does not follow a logical course in their formation of definitions, society is forced to do so...As if society was to elect a light-bulb, how long would it be before we realized a mistake may have been made(prepare for cynical snarky response).
And yes, it was a terrible analogy...
A terrible analogy you countered with with a worse one. The church decree on lightning has no effect on the people or on society. Marriage has a huge effect.
Yes, how long would it be for us to realise? I am hoping it is sooner rather than later.
Stop talking about religion. I'm not using the church to justify anything.
by Ifreann » Mon May 16, 2011 9:04 am
New England 32 wrote:Sorry but i think its wrong. GOd has made everyone and it started with adam and eve. he made a woman and a man to be together and thats how he wants it. we need to obey god and his commandments, because he knows best and loves us and we need to have respect for what he wants. look in the bible and you will see that he even says its for a man and a woman to marry and have offsprings. if he wanted gays and all that then he would have made it possible for them to have babies with each other but they cant it needs to be a boy and a girl thats the only natural psssible way.
by -St George » Mon May 16, 2011 9:05 am
You cannot 'catch the guy'. The 'gay disease' is no more rule than the 'cooties disease', but for some reason, while 'cooties' has been left behind in childhood, bigots like you try to project the 'gay' as fact. It is not.The Divine Imperium wrote:Homesexual's don't get rights. Their weak-willed mentalities allowed them to catch the gay.
How is it sinful?Coltessia wrote:I'm not going to be coy, I do believe it is sinful. However, I know there is no personality difference, and the homosexuals I have met have all been very nice. I believe things like this should be determined by the people of a given area. Though I'm personally against Homosexual marriage, I am 100% in favor of letting it go to referendum so the people can decide, rather than musty old men in Washington.
Why is my fondness for having phallic shaped objects inserting into my arse wrong?Arkinesia wrote:Meh, I think that the government has no place in the bedroom personally.
I disagree with the now-majority opinion that homosexuality is just A-OK, but I don't let my personal views affect my political views when it comes to petty issues like sexual orientation.
C for Canadians.Trotskylvania wrote:Unhealthy2 wrote:
And it's sure as hell shorter than that borg collective of an acronym LGBTQIAF. I added the 'F' for furries, because the thing is eventually going to eat up the whole alphabet anyway, so I might as well speed up the process.
Let's add "O" for otherkin as well. And P for "polyamorous"...
Hmm... maybe we can shoe-horn in "S" for swingers and maybe another "O" (perhaps O' ) for open-relationship?
To build on this, paedophilia is the attraction to prepubescents and, as such, is not illegal in any country (with child molestation or sexual assault or other similar legal terms being the crimes associated with the act of acting on paedophilic urges).
Prove it.Siorafrica wrote:I'm opposed to them apart from transsexual ones because it's true that homosexuals could adopt but there wouldn't be as strong a bond between parent and child. Plus allowing gay marraige would therefore be saying to people that given the choice best is as good as second best. I'm opposed to discrimination against LGBT people though because that is also impractical and there are enough divisions that people get hassle over as it is.
by SpectacularSpectacular » Mon May 16, 2011 9:06 am
Aestalis wrote:SpectacularSpectacular wrote:
So its a good idea now, however in the past its a terrible idea? We learn from the past, we do not live in it.
EDIT: Aside from that you are looking through a limited perspective, regarding marriage, as not all cultures in the past shared the same beliefs for marriage. In-fact even within Christianity there has been a 'less than rock like' foundation for marriage...More of a jumbling group of stolen beliefs and social structures.
Yeah that was worded wrong. I mean that if you look at the historical but still relevant roots and rock of our society, marriage and the family, it isn't logical, useful and beneficial to society to grant them the rights now.
by Ichinayagara » Mon May 16, 2011 9:08 am
by Unhealthy2 » Mon May 16, 2011 9:08 am
Aestalis wrote:Computers aren't something that have underlied and shaped our society like marriage has. They are completely different.
by Punk Reloaded » Mon May 16, 2011 9:10 am
by Ifreann » Mon May 16, 2011 9:14 am
Khawarezm wrote:They should be stoned to death. They are indwcent
by SpectacularSpectacular » Mon May 16, 2011 9:14 am
Punk Reloaded wrote:I thought this would be an intelligent discussion but appears to be just another conversation devolving between those that try to pidgeon hole people who do not support gay marriage and those decrying the deviancy of homosexuality.
It'd be nice to once see an actual conversation about the subject without the typical "don't bring God in here" or "being gay is a choice". We've all heard that before and it doesn't actually lend much to the conversation. Perhaps that's why we'll still be arguing about this issue in real life for years to come.
by Tekania » Mon May 16, 2011 9:15 am
Khawarezm wrote:They should be stoned to death. They are indwcent
by Banold » Mon May 16, 2011 9:17 am
by Daircoill » Mon May 16, 2011 9:24 am
Arkhanta wrote:all i can say is: take a good look at the Roman Empire. They had gay rights, and all we can do is marvel at their ruins...
by Tekania » Mon May 16, 2011 9:25 am
Arkhanta wrote:all i can say is: take a good look at the Roman Empire. They had gay rights, and all we can do is marvel at their ruins...
by SpectacularSpectacular » Mon May 16, 2011 9:28 am
Guapopolis wrote:queers
by Hyorius » Mon May 16, 2011 9:31 am
Great Anthonland wrote:Tell me what you think about LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) rights. And also explain why you hold that view.
by Great Agram » Mon May 16, 2011 9:31 am
by Undivulged Principles » Mon May 16, 2011 9:32 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: 1918 Armenia, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Emotional Support Crocodile, Empire of Caldrasa, Likhinia, Simonia, Stellar Colonies, Valrifall
Advertisement