Should homosexuals have the right to marry?

[Parthenon]

A gay man has the right to marry a woman, just as a lesbian has the right to marry a man.

[Raffenberg]

I, for one say yes.
And no, I am not gay.
What's your opinion?

Well, being gay myself and not inclined towards marriage, I think the ultimate insult to us in banning gay marriage stems from the fact that in most nations heterosexual marriage is on the decline anyway and heterosexual divorce rates are soaring. My mantra, therefore, has always been: No banning gay marriage until you can fix heterosexual marriages.

Like many others here, I can't figure out why anyone anywhere would want to forbid us from marrying legally if we so choose. Instead of screaming the bigoted "It's between a man and a woman" and drafting silly "sanctity of marriage" bills and laws, the institution should be all human beings wishing to take part in it.

[Sierra Systems]

So... If we legalize same sex unions, then do we get to legalize various forms of polygamy as well? Because that'd be kinda cool...

I'd very much like to be able to spend my life with my wife, and possibly(if she were willing) her wife and my husband, and what have ye to infinity.

[Self--Esteem]

So... If we legalize same sex unions, then do we get to legalize various forms of polygamy as well? Because that'd be kinda cool...

I'd very much like to be able to spend my life with my wife, and possibly(if she were willing) her wife and my husband, and what have ye to infinity.

Yea. Why not.

As long as you don't force anyone into it and all participants are at the age of consent.

[E Vestigio]

OF COURSE they should!!!

If 2 people wanna be miserable, who am i to stop them?
On the ? of civil v. religous- They ABSOLUTELY should have CIVIL marital rights, though churches shouldn't be compelled to sanction a marriage they find objectionable.

^This, and the fact that marriage was made by the church it is up to them to do it. They can be "united" by the state but whatever.

edit: marriage that is ordained by the church and or local churches was a concept that was created by the church. Yes people did "marry" before then but the church made it something else entirely by bringing God into the picture in which he hadn't been before. Just saying.

[UNIverseVERSE]

^This, and the fact that marrige was made by the church it is up to them to do it. They can be "united" by the state but whatever.

Yeah lol no.

Marriage predates the church by about a thousand years. At least.

[Phenia]

A gay man has the right to marry a woman, just as a lesbian has the right to marry a man.

You get to vote for Saddam Hussein, so you have the right to vote.

[E Vestigio]

So... If we legalize same sex unions, then do we get to legalize various forms of polygamy as well? Because that'd be kinda cool...

I'd very much like to be able to spend my life with my wife, and possibly(if she were willing) her wife and my husband, and what have ye to infinity.

When you allow one type of "perversion" then what excuse do you have to deny other types? If someone wants to marry their sister? their pet dog? A tree?!?!, if being gay is a "perversion" of something normal. How can you deny other perversions if they say they love each other and its their civil right.

You could even get freakier, (than a tree?!?!) why should we restrict any form of anything? Necrophilia? (hey what if its the same couple just one isn't there anymore O.o)

My point is we shouldn't be allowing "perversions" to be able to marry (and collect government benefits?) because once you allow one through you might as well allow all of them.

[Nobel Hobos]

A gay man has the right to marry a woman, just as a lesbian has the right to marry a man.

You get to vote for Saddam Hussein, so you have the right to vote.

I get that.

Let me put it another way: a black has the right to marry a person of their own race, just as a white does. Them's equal rights !

[Parthenon]

A gay man has the right to marry a woman, just as a lesbian has the right to marry a man.

You get to vote for Saddam Hussein, so you have the right to vote.

Saddam is one man.

Men/women are each around 50% of the population.

[Self--Esteem]

So... If we legalize same sex unions, then do we get to legalize various forms of polygamy as well? Because that'd be kinda cool...

I'd very much like to be able to spend my life with my wife, and possibly(if she were willing) her wife and my husband, and what have ye to infinity.

When you allow one type of "perversion" then what excuse do you have to deny other types? If someone wants to marry their sister? their pet dog? A tree?!?!, if being gay is a "perversion" of something normal. How can you deny other perversions if they say they love each other and its their civil right.

You could even get freakier, (than a tree?!?!) why should we restrict any form of anything? Necrophilia? (hey what if its the same couple just one isn't there anymore O.o)

My point is we shouldn't be allowing "perversions" to be able to marry (and collect government benefits?) because once you allow one through you might as well allow all of them.

Errr. It's pretty easy to prohibit those "other perversions". Dogs and trees cannot refuse, hence it would be immoral to force them into such a thing as a marriage.

[Self--Esteem]

A gay man has the right to marry a woman, just as a lesbian has the right to marry a man.

You get to vote for Saddam Hussein, so you have the right to vote.

Saddam is one man.

Men/women are each around 50% of the population.

There are actually more men.

It's about 48% women, 52% men.

Not that it would matter. Numbers don't count much, since not everyone is attracted to everyone.

[E Vestigio]

So... If we legalize same sex unions, then do we get to legalize various forms of polygamy as well? Because that'd be kinda cool...

I'd very much like to be able to spend my life with my wife, and possibly(if she were willing) her wife and my husband, and what have ye to infinity.

When you allow one type of "perversion" then what excuse do you have to deny other types? If someone wants to marry their sister? their pet dog? A tree?!?!, if being gay is a "perversion" of something normal. How can you deny other perversions if they say they love each other and its their civil right.

You could even get freakier, (than a tree?!?!) why should we restrict any form of anything? Necrophilia? (hey what if its the same couple just one isn't there anymore O.o)

My point is we shouldn't be allowing "perversions" to be able to marry (and collect government benefits?) because once you allow one through you might as well allow all of them.

Errr. It's pretty easy to prohibit those "other perversions". Dogs and trees cannot refuse, hence it would be immoral to force them into such a thing as a marriage.

How would you deny necrophilia between a couple in which one of their partners is dead? And even with that how would you deny animals? Look how happy fido is of course he agrees to it... Differences in age?... Why shouldn't ten men be able to get married? why limit it at two? 4 men 4 women? why not... My point is you could find plenty of examples that would make sense using that all involved "consent"...

[Nobel Hobos]

So... If we legalize same sex unions, then do we get to legalize various forms of polygamy as well? Because that'd be kinda cool...

I'd very much like to be able to spend my life with my wife, and possibly(if she were willing) her wife and my husband, and what have ye to infinity.

When you allow one type of "perversion" then what excuse do you have to deny other types? If someone wants to marry their sister? their pet dog? A tree?!?!, if being gay is a "perversion" of something normal. How can you deny other perversions if they say they love each other and its their civil right.

You could even get freakier, (than a tree?!?!) why should we restrict any form of anything? Necrophilia? (hey what if its the same couple just one isn't there anymore O.o)

My point is we shouldn't be allowing "perversions" to be able to marry (and collect government benefits?) because once you allow one through you might as well allow all of them.

Define "perversion" please.

It really does make a difference whether you are talking about sexual perversions (which would worry me in the case of a dog, but not of a sister or a tree) ... or whether you mean "perversion" in a broader sense.

[Nobel Hobos]

So... If we legalize same sex unions, then do we get to legalize various forms of polygamy as well? Because that'd be kinda cool...

I'd very much like to be able to spend my life with my wife, and possibly(if she were willing) her wife and my husband, and what have ye to infinity.

When you allow one type of "perversion" then what excuse do you have to deny other types? If someone wants to marry their sister? their pet dog? A tree?!?!, if being gay is a "perversion" of something normal. How can you deny other perversions if they say they love each other and its their civil right.

You could even get freakier, (than a tree?!?!) why should we restrict any form of anything? Necrophilia? (hey what if its the same couple just one isn't there anymore O.o)

My point is we shouldn't be allowing "perversions" to be able to marry (and collect government benefits?) because once you allow one through you might as well allow all of them.

Errr. It's pretty easy to prohibit those "other perversions". Dogs and trees cannot refuse, hence it would be immoral to force them into such a thing as a marriage.

How would you deny necrophilia between a couple in which one of their partners is dead? And even with that how would you deny animals? Look how happy fido is of course he agrees to it... Differences in age?... Why shouldn't ten men be able to get married? why limit it at two? 4 men 4 women? why not... My point is you could find plenty of examples that would make sense using that all involved "consent"...

This goes right to my objection to "simple" polygamy.

Two partners consenting is a simple situation. Either of them withdrawing consent (or in several cases you gave, not being competent to give consent in the first place) is a deal breaker. The deal is off.

As soon as you introduce a third (or fourth, etc) partner, the terms of the deal change for someone who is already contracted to it.

If your partner is a shit, you leave them. If one of your partners is a shit, but the other one still treats you well ... what ?

[Self--Esteem]

So... If we legalize same sex unions, then do we get to legalize various forms of polygamy as well? Because that'd be kinda cool...

I'd very much like to be able to spend my life with my wife, and possibly(if she were willing) her wife and my husband, and what have ye to infinity.

When you allow one type of "perversion" then what excuse do you have to deny other types? If someone wants to marry their sister? their pet dog? A tree?!?!, if being gay is a "perversion" of something normal. How can you deny other perversions if they say they love each other and its their civil right.

You could even get freakier, (than a tree?!?!) why should we restrict any form of anything? Necrophilia? (hey what if its the same couple just one isn't there anymore O.o)

My point is we shouldn't be allowing "perversions" to be able to marry (and collect government benefits?) because once you allow one through you might as well allow all of them.

Errr. It's pretty easy to prohibit those "other perversions". Dogs and trees cannot refuse, hence it would be immoral to force them into such a thing as a marriage.

How would you deny necrophilia between a couple in which one of their partners is dead? And even with that how would you deny animals? Look how happy fido is of course he agrees to it... Differences in age?... Why shouldn't ten men be able to get married? why limit it at two? 4 men 4 women? why not... My point is you could find plenty of examples that would make sense using that all involved "consent"...

Err. What would be wrong about 4 men and 4 women? Do you fear the possibility of leaving "empty handed"?

It doesn't matter how happy "FIdo" seems to be, as long as he can't tell anyone his opinion in plain "human language".

As for the dead partner. He/she can neither agree nor disagree, hence it's the same as for Fido. I'd actually go as far as to call it rape.

[Nobel Hobos]

A gay man has the right to marry a woman, just as a lesbian has the right to marry a man.

You get to vote for Saddam Hussein, so you have the right to vote.

Saddam is one man.

Men/women are each around 50% of the population.

There are actually more men.

It's about 48% women, 52% men.

Not that it would matter. Numbers don't count much, since not everyone is attracted to everyone.

Numbers don't matter much indeed.

Hence, your post is a waste of screen.

[Phenia]

A gay man has the right to marry a woman, just as a lesbian has the right to marry a man.

You get to vote for Saddam Hussein, so you have the right to vote.

Saddam is one man.

Men/women are each around 50% of the population.

Right! So, a choice between A and A is still a choice. Just as a gay man can marry a woman, so you too can endorse Saddam Hussein as President of Iraq. I'm glad you totally got my point!

[Self--Esteem]

A gay man has the right to marry a woman, just as a lesbian has the right to marry a man.

You get to vote for Saddam Hussein, so you have the right to vote.

Saddam is one man.

Men/women are each around 50% of the population.

There are actually more men.

It's about 48% women, 52% men.

Not that it would matter. Numbers don't count much, since not everyone is attracted to everyone.

Numbers don't matter much indeed.

Hence, your post is a waste of screen.

See me care.

[Scarsaw]

So... If we legalize same sex unions, then do we get to legalize various forms of polygamy as well? Because that'd be kinda cool...

I'd very much like to be able to spend my life with my wife, and possibly(if she were willing) her wife and my husband, and what have ye to infinity.

When you allow one type of "perversion" then what excuse do you have to deny other types? If someone wants to marry their sister? their pet dog? A tree?!?!, if being gay is a "perversion" of something normal. How can you deny other perversions if they say they love each other and its their civil right.

You could even get freakier, (than a tree?!?!) why should we restrict any form of anything? Necrophilia? (hey what if its the same couple just one isn't there anymore O.o)

My point is we shouldn't be allowing "perversions" to be able to marry (and collect government benefits?) because once you allow one through you might as well allow all of them.

Personally, I see no reason not to allow other sexual deviants...as long as they don't break another law. This means everything except neophilia and pedophilia is good, and I see no problem with that. As I said when homosexuality became a huge topic, "I don't give a shit who you want to bang in the bedroom as not my place to stop you."

So, lets explain why we should allow other sexual deviants:

Incest? Not healthy for the kid, but then again we let people with known genetic diseases breed so really a kid from incest and a kid born to a family with known genetic diseases are in the same "risked to be messed up" boat. So why not. Who am I to stop love?

Bestiality? Zoophilia has long been a human pastime and people can become emotionally attracted to the animal partners. The major argument is that "animals cannot consent" but then I wonder what you would call it when the dog is on top, not forced. Can't rape the willing, as they say. Sure, there are tones of health problems and risks, but if someone is willing to do it, then let them. With luck they'll get one of the quicker killing diseases and die off before becoming a drain on the health system.

Tree-iality? If they can get the tree in their house, or make walls around then tree, then it's all good. If not, that's just indecent exposure and a no-go!

Necrophilia? If someone actually donates their body to this cause, then I don't see the problem. The major thing that I can see would limit necrophilia, and makes it so that someone needs to donate a body, is that if someone takes a body or digs one up...that's thief and is illegal. I do think that a person should get at least copyright ownership of their body after it dies for at least 70 years, when the copyright runs off. If you're still keen to screw a body that has been in the ground for 70+ years...then honestly...go for it as you're screwing mainly mud, bone fragments, and bugs. I don't even think the original owner would want it any more (if some way they magically could).

Pedophilia? This is the only one with no exceptions being that there is an age of consent for children. It's pretty cut dry that children under a certain age should not be sexually toyed with. There are also tones of other protection laws, which talks about not exploiting children and all that fun stuff. Also, in most cases, bonking a child means you have to steal them away from parents and/or has to rape them. Neither are good.

[Nobel Hobos]

A gay man has the right to marry a woman, just as a lesbian has the right to marry a man.

You get to vote for Saddam Hussein, so you have the right to vote.

Saddam is one man.

Men/women are each around 50% of the population.

There are actually more men.

It's about 48% women, 52% men.

Not that it would matter. Numbers don't count much, since not everyone is attracted to everyone.

Numbers don't matter much indeed.

Hence, your post is a waste of screen.

See me care.

Oh, you don't care about what you post.

Well, then you won't mind me telling you that your irrelvant numbers are wrong, then, will you ?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publication ... /2018.html

My apologies if you live in American Samoa.

[Risottia]

Of course and homosexuals have the right to get married. It is not their choice that they were born like this.

I think it's a choice to have sex and a couple life according to one's own inclinations. If a behaviour doesn't damage other people, it's perfectly legitimate, be it the effect of a free choice or of an inborn inclination. Who cares?

[Batuni]

Yes.

[Nobel Hobos]

Tree-iality? If they can get the tree in their house, or make walls around then tree, then it's all good. If not, that's just indecent exposure and a no-go!

How terribly urban-o-centric !

As the old riddle goes:

if a tree fucks in the forest, and no-one hears it, did it really come?

.

[Ifreann]

A gay man has the right to marry a woman, just as a lesbian has the right to marry a man.

Which is still a case of inequality.

---

When you allow one type of "perversion" then what excuse do you have to deny other types? If someone wants to marry their sister? their pet dog? A tree?!?!, if being gay is a "perversion" of something normal. How can you deny other perversions if they say they love each other and its their civil right.

It's pretty simple really. If a "perversion" involves only consenting adults, then it should not be denied. Suppose I do want to marry my adult sister, and she wants to marry me. What business is it of yours?

You could even get freakier, (than a tree?!?!) why should we restrict any form of anything? Necrophilia? (hey what if its the same couple just one isn't there anymore O.o)

Come fellows, let us jump off this slippery slope.

My point is we shouldn't be allowing "perversions" to be able to marry (and collect government benefits?) because once you allow one through you might as well allow all of them.

Your point is bullshit.