Should it be called gay marriage?


  

184 members have voted

  1. 1. Gay marriage should be...

    • Called Gay Marriage...
      76
    • Called a Civil Union...
      33
    • Called something else...
      25
    • Against the law...
      50


Recommended Posts

Gay Marriage because it is not normal. Anyway it does'nt bother me that much some two people the same sex want to get married, but when they start adding children to the equation then that is where things are just WRONG. Children is a sacrifice that should be accepted when a gay marriage is performed.

This is where everything gets tricky. Two same sex people getting married doesn't affect anyone but if they want to adopt children or find a surrogate mother then it becomes a social issue, something that each country needs to legislate for. I don't think having two gay parents would harm a child's development or make them more likely to be gay but it's still a difficult subject to tackle, particularly as there is the possibility, however remote, of both parents believing that being gay is the norm and trying to raise the kid that way [this is incredibly unlikely though, as they are most likely to be completely open about sexuality, more so than most hetrosexual couples].

It's interesting to see society changing around us. Support for gay marriage in the US lags behind that of the rest of the western world and there is a greater degree of polarisation due to the size of population and their different beliefs, unlike more liberal countries such as Canada and The Netherlands. However, there is no right or wrong; there is only what is tolerated by society and, accordingly, government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A marriage is between a man and a woman, has been for thousands of years. Why do we call gay ppl gay?Why do we need to give them a seperate identity?Because the are different from hetrosexuals is why. Why should they get the same title then if they choose to be monogamous. Why do they get sperated apart in one instance but demand to be the same in another when the are not the same. If gay ppl want to start something new let them call it something else marriage was already taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gay Marriage, because I see it as a disorder, maybe nature's way of birth control.

If it was "normal" we would be extinct as a species.

Eh, I think you're kind of twisting that. Let's look at mental retards.

It's not normal for someone to be born mentally retarded, but is in normal for X % of our population to be brought into our world this way.

homosexuality is probably the same way. It's not normal from a strictly biological standpoint, but hell, neither is being faithful to your wife. Few consider that immoral. Point is, it IS normal for x % of our population to be gay, and that is something people do need to accept IMO. Same with mental retards, just gotta accept that there is a possibility of every child being born like that.

Not trying to say homosexuals are mentally incapable or anything by using this analogy, so please don't take it that ay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

herby, read raum's first post, he speaks a lot of sense

and to anyone who thinks they have some moral superiority to gay people, and that therefore they can say that gay marriage should be in some way seperated from heterosexual marriage is just being completely discriminatory. marriage is about love, that is all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First we have to determine what we want the results to be. By this I mean, are we trying to make a distinction between traditional marriage (man/woman) vs. other forms of marriage (man/man - woman/woman). If we make this distinction do we not create a form of segregation that could attach a negative stigma. But yet, if it is kept simple just by saying "marriage" then those that oppose homosexuality feel that their "traditional" marriage through its symbolism is diminished and therefore does not hold the same value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

herby, read raum's first post, he speaks a lot of sense

and to anyone who thinks they have some moral superiority to gay people, and that therefore they can say that gay marriage should be in some way seperated from heterosexual marriage is just being completely discriminatory. marriage is about love, that is all

Just about love? Give me a break. Raums has no moral compass he feels ppl should do whaterver they want. That kind of thinking doesnt work in reality. Anarchy doesnt work. As long as i can vote ill vote against gay marriage. You can call ppl whatever names you want but wont change over 80% of americans minds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never really understood that last point well.

To me, the sanctity of marriage so to say is not and has never been upheld on a global scale. It's a relationship to relationship case.

For example, someone who gets their girlfriend in highschool pregnant by mistake and then marries her, stays with her for 3 years and decides to book it has done a ****-poor job of carrying out a marriage.

Someone who falls in love with X person, they decide they want to marry and they live together for the next 50 years through the good and the bad, the close moments and the heated arguements...they've done a damn good job.

This is how I make my distinctions as to who is doing a good job with their marriage and who isn't. People who never expect fights or cannot handle them are not ready for a marriage IMO, those not ready to devote themselves and commit are not either.

I personally do not see any bearing sexuality has on this. I think homosexuals are just as capable of having a failed marriage or a succesful one as straight people.

Mekun: So because I realize we're all immoral creatures, you assume I don't consider immoral actions immoral? Pretty laughable assumption if you ask me, since I'm talking about morality in the first place.

I think people should be generally free to pursue happiness. There are limits though. I do not think me smoking a joint is something that needs to be regulated by law, but if I decided that running people over in my car was fun, then that is crossing a line. This is just one extreme example, but I do have morals. You're a pretty judgemental ass if you go around calling everyone who has a different set of morals than you (Everyone on earth besides yourself) an immoral person that believes in anarchy.

Edited by Raum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eh, I think you're kind of twisting that. Let's look at mental retards.

It's not normal for someone to be born mentally retarded, but is in normal for X % of our population to be brought into our world this way.

homosexuality is probably the same way. It's not normal from a strictly biological standpoint, but hell, neither is being faithful to your wife. Few consider that immoral. Point is, it IS normal for x % of our population to be gay, and that is something people do need to accept IMO. Same with mental retards, just gotta accept that there is a possibility of every child being born like that.

Not trying to say homosexuals are mentally incapable or anything by using this analogy, so please don't take it that ay.

I still see it as a disorder,.. not that I'm better or feel superior, I accept that there is a possibility of every child being born like that.

If my son was gay I would accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that it should just be called "marriage", no orientation should be included.

Exactly what I was thinking.

There should be no reason why it shouldn't have the title of marriage. Marriage was around before the Bible which defined it as between a man and a woman. Before that, it was defined as what it truly is: the everlasting bond between two people who love each other. And that's all it needs to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly what I was thinking.

There should be no reason why it shouldn't have the title of marriage. Marriage was around before the Bible which defined it as between a man and a woman. Before that, it was defined as what it truly is: the everlasting bond between two people who love each other. And that's all it needs to be.

on the basis of anatomy, it should be clear that two men, two women getting "married" isn't correct. The traditonal value of marraige is corrupted in so much that, if a child is adopted by a gay homosexual couple, how is that child supposed to endure and thrive? he/she is walking with her "daddies" but all around are husbands and wives. How the hell is a child supposed to self determine thier own values? I wholly believe that the homosexual couple will try and force thier way of life/ beliefs on this child. How can a homosexual man explain to a child why they don't have a mommy?

Moms and dads are meant to have children, I'm hearing this concept of "but we have invetro-fertilization!"(sp?) or "we have adoption!" These two medical wonders have been around long before homosexual marraige. also, homosexual marraiges are in themselves in jeopardy because most states have anti-sodomy laws which means that the very act of homosexuality is illegal alone from a legal standpoint. If states would push those laws as they should, the homosexuals would be forced back into thier closets. Just some thoughts... as for the Bible quotation, you need to quote the Bible in truth. You can't just disect a piece of a sentence out and say it means well for homosexual marraiges. If you'd quote properly the first marraige GOD made was Adam and Eve, man/ woman. Sodom, where we get "sodomy" or "sodomites" those who practise the act of Sodomy, was in fact destroyed in bible times because of that corruptness of homosexuality. I don't need to prove it, it says it in black and white.

Edited by Dirty Diaper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just about love? Give me a break. Raums has no moral compass he feels ppl should do whaterver they want. That kind of thinking doesnt work in reality. Anarchy doesnt work. As long as i can vote ill vote against gay marriage. You can call ppl whatever names you want but wont change over 80% of americans minds.

he said absolutely nothing about his own moral compass, but spoke of the moral compass of society in general, of which he was completely on point and correct about. humans, all humans are a generally immoral creature and you cannot give me any solid proof to deny that. judging from his words and his general matter, he seems to be very intelligent and seems to know of what he speaks, i think he's got you beat buddy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he said absolutely nothing about his own moral compass, but spoke of the moral compass of society in general, of which he was completely on point and correct about. humans, all humans are a generally immoral creature and you cannot give me any solid proof to deny that. judging from his words and his general matter, he seems to be very intelligent and seems to know of what he speaks, i think he's got you beat buddy.

So people have faults and we should just learn to live with it? No we have have faults and should live to better ourselves not degrade as a society. Just be cause we know people will do imoral things doesnt mean we should allow it , thats why we have laws.

He has me beat? Is this a race?

Grow up...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gay marriages are for gays, that are getting married. To backup that, its a marriage for two gays. So therefore it should be called a gay marriage.
hetero mariages are for hetero, that are getting married. To backup that, its a marriage for two hetero. So therefore it should be called "hetero" mariage...

mariage period imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So people have faults and we should just learn to live with it? No we have have faults and should live to better ourselves not degrade as a society. Just be cause we know people will do imoral things doesnt mean we should allow it , thats why we have laws.

He has me beat? Is this a race?

Grow up...

yes, you should learn to live with the faults that human beings make, i never said that you couldn't strive to be a better person, but people have thier immoralities and thats the way its been for centuries and thats the way its going to continue to be. not everything that is immoral is against the law. drinking alcohol, smoking cigarettes, both are immoral in a sense, but are they against the law? no.

on a side note, i'm grown up quite enough, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How the hell is a child supposed to self determine thier own values? I wholly believe that the homosexual couple will try and force thier way of life/ beliefs on this child. How can a homosexual man explain to a child why they don't have a mommy?

Yeah, I can really see them teaching a straight child to go against their genetic make up and learning to be gay.

The same way that straight couples can't teach their gay children to be straight.

Maybe I could teach my grandad to learn his way out of cancer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sodom, where we get "sodomy" or "sodomites" those who practise the act of Sodomy, was in fact destroyed in bible times because of that corruptness of homosexuality. I don't need to prove it, it says it in black and white.

So because it's written down, it's true? I just wrote down on a piece of paper "Dirty Diaper is a retard." That is the truth because I say it's the truth. I don't need to prove it, it says it in black and white.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hetero mariages are for hetero, that are getting married. To backup that, its a marriage for two hetero. So therefore it should be called "hetero" mariage...

mariage period imo

But a hetero marriage is classed, by the majority, as normal.

For example, on a completely different subject, but the same topic:

I have a Gibson Les Paul Standard guitar. I buy another one, thats called a Gibson Les Paul Standard Faded. Its still a standard, just has a faded colour... But its still got the prefix of "Faded" because its different from the norm.

And just so you all know, I have nothing against gays......or Gibson Les Paul Faded versions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey,

they should take the word "marriage" out of the term altogeather. i dont support this type of behaveare :no: , but it should be called a "Gay Civil Union"

For the record marrige is still defined between a man & a woman

blade

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey,

they should take the word "marriage" out of the term altogeather. i dont support this type of behaveare :no: , but it should be called a "Gay Civil Union"

For the record marrige is still defined between a man & a woman

blade

If they give it a different name (which they have in uk), why would you still need the "gay" part in there?

It's like saying, he was a "massive giant". :s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Civil Union. The government cannot unilaterally declare a fundamental change in the definition. Civil Union would better reflect the reality that it is a Canadian instituted change which cannot be enforced outside of Canada's borders. To call it marriage is to lie to people about it's effectiveness outside of Canada.

Many of you people are voting for the first option based on emotion or because you don't care.

Based on my understand of the Conservatives position, I understand that they may want to change the name to civil union to reflect the "reality" that its effect does not extend outside our borders. They may also look at dealing with the problems gay people were having with various institutions eliminating any reason for gay people to have a civil union other than because they want to.

I hear a lot about "rights" but it would be hypocritical to ignore the rights of everyone else. Marriage is an institution on which out society is based. It predates civilization itself and it is shared by all of society. What the Liberal party did was to completely ignore the fact that they did not create marriage and that it is shared by people of various faiths and philosophies around the world.

I would go as far to say that what they did was a violation of the separation of church and state.

We need to fix the system without violating the rights of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why not just call it marriage, isnt it obvious if its 2 guys or 2 girls that they are gay. to many rednecks need to label it or be against it. who honestly cares, if they wanna live miserable married lives why cant they.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.