|
Post by Cassiopeia on Aug 24, 2002 11:02:54 GMT -5
^^^ People usually do get married because they are in love. But you do not have to be in love to get married. It's not a requirement.
|
|
|
Post by Ich Liebe Rammstein on Aug 25, 2002 17:27:37 GMT -5
^^^^^^ Then it is obviously lust then.
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Aug 25, 2002 22:28:55 GMT -5
^^^ Huh?
|
|
|
Post by julinka on Sept 4, 2002 18:00:03 GMT -5
Marrying for love is a pretty revolutionary, and quite modern, Western, first-world idea. Most people in the history of the planet didn't (and don't) marry for love.
|
|
|
Post by Cassiopeia on Sept 4, 2002 22:30:28 GMT -5
^^^ I know that most people today marry because they are in love. Even a couple hundred years ago, it was mainly the upper class that still had arranged marriages. But love has never been a requirement for marriage. That was all I was trying to say.
|
|
|
Post by paradoxPanda on Oct 13, 2002 19:05:18 GMT -5
>>^^^ No one ever said that gays can't love each other. People are just not allowed to marry someone of the same sex. Again, marriage and love are two completely different things. <<
I'm going to assume you're straight here. Eventually, you plan to fall in love and get married. How would you feel if someone said "No you can't get married anymore. But it's no big deal because you can still be in love." You can go ahead and pretend it wouldn't matter, but it would. You feel you have a right to be married to the person you love.
It would be exactly the same as saying "You can't marry because you're black. But it's no big deal." In fact, slaves weren't allowed to marry. No surprise there. But shouldn't they have that right?
|
|
|
Post by funkygirlk16 on Oct 15, 2002 12:14:20 GMT -5
<<<Should Homosexuals Be Able to Marry & Adopt?>>>
It says in the bible not to have a lover of the same member of your sex. I intend to live on that.
Why shouldn't they marry?: Cause' it's wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Why shouldn't they adopt?: Could you imagine being that child? You'd get teased out of your a*s.
~jenn
edited by pettyluv for content
|
|
|
Post by pettyluv on Oct 19, 2002 21:35:21 GMT -5
I just want to make clear that you have every right on these boards to argue your point in a clear and intelligent manner. Making lewd remarks and trying to start a flame war are not tolerable forms of debate and they will be deleted as such.
|
|
|
Post by LisaRocksYourWorld, yo on Nov 3, 2002 18:56:13 GMT -5
<<It says in the bible not to have a lover of the same member of your sex. I intend to live on that.
Why shouldn't they marry?: Cause' it's wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Why shouldn't they adopt?: Could you imagine being that child? You'd get teased out of your a*s.>>
Not everyone lives by the bible. If that's your personal choice, then fine. If homosexual marraiges and adoptions should be illegal, then it shouldn't be for a reason that a good portion of the country doesn't morally believe in.
Also, children get teased for various reasons. Whether they're too fat, too thin, big nose, small nose, gay parents, fat parents, ugly parents... It's inevitable, and I bet a lot of homosexual parents would do a better job raising a child than someone who had a "normal" lifestyle.
|
|
|
Post by Starr29 on Jan 3, 2003 16:48:26 GMT -5
I'm Christian and I live by the Bible. The bible says being Gay is wrong and I agree. However, Gays and Lesbians are people just like us. Human Beings. They should not be taken away from any right that straight's have. Did I make sense?
|
|
|
Post by Toxic-Avenger on Jan 14, 2003 10:02:36 GMT -5
Gays are men and Lesbians are women, why should they have anymore rights than anyone else? And should minority gays and lesbians have more rights than their straight counterparts? No. One thing is for sure, this will give a whole new meaning to the expression, "Separate the men from the boys."
|
|
|
Post by 80s Child on Jan 14, 2003 15:47:53 GMT -5
^^ Gays and lesbians should not have MORE rights than anyone else. However, as it stands, they have LESS rights than everyone else. What allowing them to marry and adopt children would give them is the SAME rights as every straight person on this continent. Now, as a straight person, you may choose not to use your right to get married, but you still have that right, correct? Gays should therefore have that right too, whether they use it or not. As for the Biblical argument, that's a moot point when it comes to the law. Religion and the government are SEPARATE, at least for the time being (although who knows what's gonna happen if Mr. Bush stays in power... but that's another topic). Your personal religious beliefs, while you are certainly entitled to them, have nothing to do with the law. Therefore, living by the Bible is not an acceptable argument for not allowing gay marriage/adoption.
|
|
|
Post by Toxic-Avenger on Jan 15, 2003 8:15:26 GMT -5
Religion and the government are SEPARATE, at least for the time being (although who knows what's gonna happen if Mr. Bush stays in power...
Nope, each was founded on the other. Good for Bush, at least he has the guts to stand up to opposition. I guess we'll have to re-write all our Nation's official documents to get rid of all references to religion.
But I digress, I didn't bring up a religious reference now did I.
But I do find the whole idea a bad one. Two fathers or two mothers who are confused about thier genders can't do the job right. No social experiments here, not with kids.
|
|
|
Post by 80s Child on Jan 15, 2003 11:40:54 GMT -5
"Two fathers or two mothers who are confused about their genders can't do the job right. No social experiments, not with kids." Being gay is NOT being confused about your gender. Wow, talk about stereotypes abounding! Being gay is simply who you're attracted to. For example, a man may be attracted to a specific type of woman - brown hair, brown eyes, tall, whatever. A gay man is the same, only he's attracted to men. Gays are (usually) not confused about their genders; the males are males and the females are females, they just happen to be attracted to members of the same sex instead of the opposite one. I think you should get to know a homosexual person REALLY well before you go making blind judgements like that one. As for the religious thing, I didn't say YOU brought it up, I was referring to the person who said she lived by the Bible and was using that as her sole argument. And regardless of the history of your country, religion has no place in government nowadays. The past is in the past now; it's high time we started living in the present.
|
|
|
Post by Toxic-Avenger on Jan 15, 2003 13:06:12 GMT -5
Being gay is NOT being confused about your gender.
They certainly have the whole idea of relationships all screwed up.
Wow, talk about stereotypes abounding! Being gay is simply who you're attracted to. For example, a man may be attracted to a specific type of woman - brown hair, brown eyes, tall, whatever.
Sounds good to me!
A gay man is the same, only he's attracted to men. Gays are (usually) not confused about their genders;
Usually?
the males are males and the females are females, they just happen to be attracted to members of the same sex instead of the opposite one.
Gay men are certainly beating the doors down to get into the boyscouts, eh? Wonder what the motivation is? It ain't to lead them and teach leadership.
I think you should get to know a homosexual person REALLY well before you go making blind judgements like that one.
Blind judgements? Know a homosexual? I do as a matter of fact, and I'm not impressed, I know a few. One was married to my brother for a few years before waking up one morning and she decided she was a lez. So she decided she hates men and has been dragging my brother through the wonderful New Jersey divorce court system ever since.
The other homo I knew, and had the more unfortunate experience with, almost cost me my job. Seems he had the hots for me, and couldn't understand why I wouldn't give in to his advances. So he spread his little lies about me and almost got me fired. Treacherous little weasel. Luckily I had witnesses. It was a gross feeling actually, that this guy was into me. I showered for a week.
As for the religious thing, I didn't say YOU brought it up, I was referring to the person who said she lived by the Bible and was using that as her sole argument.
She's right!
And regardless of the history of your country, religion has no place in government nowadays. The past is in the past now; it's high time we started living in the present.
I can't wait to see what that brings. Brothels in the White House . . . wait, we already did that. Dishonest politicians . . . uh, never mind.
|
|