Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Homosexual marriages


  • Please log in to reply
241 replies to this topic

#1 Ives

Ives
  • 4,320 posts


Users Awards

Posted 08 May 2006 - 10:02 AM

It is a rehash of an old topic, however, the older topic is probably 7 months old. Due to the age of such a topic, I'm not going to touch it. None the less, this is just a topic on your opinions on the legalization of the issue. Currently it's legal in Colorado and civil unions are legal in California. (In the US.) In other countries, it's legal in Belgium, Canada, The Netherlands, Spain, United Kingdom, and has been up for consideration in the US, Japan, New Zealand, Hong Kong, South Africa, etc. In most legalized countries, there is no apparent problem with the fact it's legalized, with the exception of a few small complaints from some Canadians. It's also considered to be illegal by death in countries such as Iran, United Arab Emirates, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, and illegal by prison sentence in Fiji, Jamaica, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, and many other countries.

With some of that covered, what is your opinion on the concern of homosexual marraiges? Due to a couple topics becoming a complete battlefield, try and be mature. My opinion on the issue is yes, same sex marraiges should be allowed in countries such as the United States, Japan, China, etc. The reason for this goes down to human rights. Books such as the Bible, Qur'an, etc. will say acting upon it is a sin. However, due to the idea of sins being equal by most standards, acting upon it would be no different than a boy who takes a cookie from the cookie jar without asking his parents, or a teenager who yells and screams at his parents. You don't have to agree with someone or what they do, but you can let them enjoy it like anyone else. It wouldn't ruin the sanctity of marraige if conditions suggest its allowed by certain standards. (EG Allowing the church or temple to decide if they want religious marraiges in their sacred place.)

Debate

Edit note 1:: Typo on "marriage."
Edit note 2:: UK actually DOES allow same sex marriages. Thanks Frizzle

#2 Zero DeLocke

Zero DeLocke
  • 2,087 posts

Posted 08 May 2006 - 10:10 AM

I think the term "marriage" applies between a man and a woman. Having "Civil Unities" does not bother me. With vocabulary out of the way, I think the government should apply the same tax laws and such to Gay Marriages as they would Normal Marriages. I think of this topic in the same way I do illegal immigration. Pay your taxes and you can stay.

EDITTED FOR TYPOS

Edited by Zero DeLocke, 08 May 2006 - 10:39 AM.


#3 Justin

Justin
  • <img src ='http://i32.tinypic.com/302oyrp.jpg'>

  • 3,595 posts

Posted 08 May 2006 - 10:28 AM

I think they should definitly be allowed and be treated with the same rights/respects as when a man marries a women.

I wouldnt agree that "marriage" only applied for a man and women. I think marriage is when 2 people decide to commit and take it to the final level.

#4 Ilya

Ilya
  • 2,419 posts

Posted 08 May 2006 - 10:32 AM

I think they should be allowed to get married, because even though god made mariege between man and a woaman, it still doesnt matter, who cares? I dont have any problems with that, but if we legalize that everywhere... then kids be growing up and seeing 2 men walking around holding eachj other hands, and think what kind of perception does a child get of that image?

#5 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1,097 posts


Users Awards

Posted 08 May 2006 - 10:39 AM

I think they should be allowed to get married, because even though god made mariege between man and a woaman, it still doesnt matter, who cares? I dont have any problems with that, but if we legalize that everywhere... then kids be growing up and seeing 2 men walking around holding eachj other hands, and think what kind of perception does a child get of that image?

The perception the child would get is that same sex relationships are another, perfectly natural and viable form of love.
Exactly how I think it should be...

I don't have any issues with same sex marriages, nor do I think they should have a different name, or be treated legally in any different ways from "normal" marriages.

#6 Cataliste

Cataliste
  • Codex's Right Hand

  • 4,662 posts


Users Awards

Posted 08 May 2006 - 10:47 AM

Me and my girlfriend are both atheist, therefore we will not have a standard "marriage". We would have a a ceremony with family, but there would be no official marriage from a preacher. So its a civil union.

So I do not see why gays cannot have one too. My marriage is nonstandard, as is theres. Judge them, judge me. :p

#7 pyke

pyke
  • 13,672 posts


Users Awards

Posted 08 May 2006 - 11:29 AM

I think they should be allowed to get married, because even though god made mariege between man and a woaman, it still doesnt matter, who cares? I dont have any problems with that, but if we legalize that everywhere... then kids be growing up and seeing 2 men walking around holding eachj other hands, and think what kind of perception does a child get of that image?

Probably thinks nothing of it as they would still be holding hands probably :p . Not to mention that there would still be a lot more heterosexual couples around in the majority of the world (I think xD)

I say it should be allowed. Maybe not marriage but civil unity as others have said.

#8 Justin

Justin
  • <img src ='http://i32.tinypic.com/302oyrp.jpg'>

  • 3,595 posts

Posted 08 May 2006 - 12:37 PM

I dont understand.. So 2 men want to get married, when someone proposes they go "Will you Civil Unity me?" or "I think Herald is gonna ask me for Civil Unity!" "OH HOW ROMANTIC!"

#9 Ives

Ives
  • 4,320 posts


Users Awards

Posted 08 May 2006 - 01:37 PM

LOL Balmung.

Marriage is a mere word. I don't have a problem if someone wants to say a religious marriage is between a man and a woman. Hell, go straight at that. But marriage in general isn't really defining of it being a man or a woman. Commonly it is though, but heres a google definition for definition:

# the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); "a long and happy marriage"; "God bless this union"
# two people who are married to each other; "his second marriage was happier than the first"; "a married couple without love"
# the act of marrying; the nuptial ceremony; "their marriage was conducted in the chapel"
# a close and intimate union; "the marriage of music and dance"; "a marriage of ideas"



#10 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 08 May 2006 - 02:07 PM

Erm Homosexual marriages are legal in the UK.

#11 Tetiel

Tetiel
  • 11,532 posts


Users Awards

Posted 08 May 2006 - 02:41 PM

Erm Homosexual marriages are legal in the UK.

Ah yes... they are, aren't they? I hear Elton John got married recently :)

Anyways... honestly I have no problem with it. It really doesn't effect me at all... the thing that I would object to is if it occurs within a Christian church because at least in the way that I was taught about Christianity and many of you can disagree with that, it's fine... but that would be sacrelidge. However the American government is not run by religion so honestly I don't see what the big argument against it is... It's just one issue where I don't care I guess.

#12 cara

cara
  • 56/m/mexico

  • 3,191 posts


Users Awards

Posted 08 May 2006 - 03:07 PM

Of course. No law should come in between two peoples love for one another. Who are we to decide who others love?

They are still people, dispite which gender they like, they should be able to express it in any given way they like, and have the same rights as every other human on this rock.

#13 Tetiel

Tetiel
  • 11,532 posts


Users Awards

Posted 08 May 2006 - 03:13 PM

Of course. No law should come in between two peoples love for one another. Who are we to decide who others love?

They are still people, dispite which gender they like, they should be able to express it in any given way they like, and have the same rights as every other human on this rock.

Well... y'see the government CAN interfere though. The government has a right if it's damaging. For example... what if a brother and sister love each other (in the non-traditional way)? Or other cases of incest? What if a 45 year old man loves a 15 year old girl? I understand that you were probably only talking about it as far as homosexuality... but you must understand that there are cases that the government CAN intervene ^_^

#14 cara

cara
  • 56/m/mexico

  • 3,191 posts


Users Awards

Posted 08 May 2006 - 03:19 PM

Well... y'see the government CAN interfere though. The government has a right if it's damaging. For example... what if a brother and sister love each other (in the non-traditional way)? Or other cases of incest? What if a 45 year old man loves a 15 year old girl? I understand that you were probably only talking about it as far as homosexuality... but you must understand that there are cases that the government CAN intervene ^_^


Well of course there's some line the government needs to lay down, tetiel. :p

Anywho, if a fourty year old man loves a fifteen year old, and vice versa, well then why not? If she loves him and he loves her, it maybe not be very 'normal' to everyone, but, who're we to stop them due to age?
I was talking about it as far as homosexuality in general, though. ^_^

-And for siblings and/or family .. well then .. is it not illegal for a brother to love a sister, vice versa, and them marrying? If so, well then, 'tis only fair for it to be the same thing with homosexual marriages. ^_^

#15 Frizzle

Frizzle
  • M'lord

  • 16,889 posts


Users Awards

Posted 08 May 2006 - 03:28 PM

Erm, the reason the age gap is a big deal is because children can be easily manipulated and decieved so of course they would need adult guidance until that child is old enough, so that law is in place for a good reason. But that's another topic altogether.

And the only reason incest is illegal other then being a taboo, is because is a child is created, it can cause a chemical and gene imbalance and leave the child mentally, physically or chemically disfigured (and emotionally come to think of it..)

Sorry for going off topic again.

#16 Melchoire

Melchoire
  • 5,284 posts


Users Awards

Posted 08 May 2006 - 03:33 PM

Well I guess Im the only one that objects to this due to my religious beliefs plain and simple :)
Bad

#17 Justin

Justin
  • <img src ='http://i32.tinypic.com/302oyrp.jpg'>

  • 3,595 posts

Posted 08 May 2006 - 03:44 PM

Just because you have religious beliefs dosent mean you need to disagree with others beliefs >_>

#18 Ives

Ives
  • 4,320 posts


Users Awards

Posted 08 May 2006 - 04:24 PM

Well I guess Im the only one that objects to this due to my religious beliefs plain and simple :)
Bad


The only problem with that logic is, is the fact that Canada, America, etc. are both in democratic countries. If your talking about a theocracy, then it's totally reasonable. Otherwise, its pretty much denying basic rights, despite the fact some people don't nessecarily agree with it. I'd go more into detail, but its so confusing to me that my head would explode.

Erm Homosexual marriages are legal in the UK.


According to Wikipedia, it's Civil unions that are allowed. But then again, thats probably from a 2003 chart or something. My bad.

#19 Hawk

Hawk
  • hawk·ish·ly

  • 9,682 posts


Users Awards

Posted 08 May 2006 - 04:30 PM

I dont like the idea of homosexual marriages. Anyone remember Sodom and Gamorrah? We all know what happened there (If you ever read part of the bible).

http://www.christian...r/abr-a007.html Is proof of Sodom and Gamorrah's existance. For those who dont know, Sodom and Gamorrah was not spared by God because of their homosexuality and immoral acts. Had Abraham been able to find 10 righteous people God would have spared the city. He found 1.

Edit: I forgot the main point I wanted to make...

Mariages is what I ant to avoid. I wouldnt mind if they recieved teh same benefits as being married people, but do not call it married. Call it a Civil Union or whatever.

Edited by hawk117, 08 May 2006 - 04:32 PM.


#20 .:Orange:.

.:Orange:.
  • 1,168 posts

Posted 08 May 2006 - 04:32 PM

Hmm, I just find it odd to call it marriage when a it's not female/male union. That's just a personal thing though. I think they should be able to recieve the same treatment as anyone else.

Also, the Bible never necessarily condemns homosexuality, there were a few mistranslations and things there. I have my own theory on that, but the Bible definately says that love is love, period.

Edited by .:Orange:., 08 May 2006 - 04:34 PM.


#21 Ives

Ives
  • 4,320 posts


Users Awards

Posted 08 May 2006 - 04:36 PM

I dont like the idea of homosexual marriages. Anyone remember Sodom and Gamorrah? We all know what happened there (If you ever read part of the bible).

http://www.christian...r/abr-a007.html Is proof of Sodom and Gamorrah's existance. For those who dont know, Sodom and Gamorrah was not spared by God because of their homosexuality and immoral acts. Had Abraham been able to find 10 righteous people God would have spared the city. He found 1.

Edit: I forgot the main point I wanted to make...

Mariages is what I ant to avoid. I wouldnt mind if they recieved teh same benefits as being married people, but do not call it married. Call it a Civil Union or whatever.


Ehhh, the place existed, but it's not exactly 100% true. I don't see any countries being plowed down, nor do I think that any country will. From what I've studied, the difference between that time and todays world is that procreation was a neccesity. Amyjja covered my views on it in the "Genesis" thread I made two and a half weeks ago. To add onto it, both cities were completely counterproductive, rather than having only a few people who acted upon homosexual tendencies.

#22 .:Orange:.

.:Orange:.
  • 1,168 posts

Posted 08 May 2006 - 04:42 PM

Yeah, I don't really think Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of homosexuals. They were very...uhm...yeah. I think it was maybe it was the 100 person orgies where they all got STD's?

#23 CaptainPlanetT

CaptainPlanetT
  • 20 posts

Posted 08 May 2006 - 05:14 PM

Listen to this song:

The Game of Love (click)

I hope I made my point
Peace out ------->

#24 Stone

Stone
  • 372 posts

Posted 08 May 2006 - 05:19 PM

in my opinion, love is love, as many people want to say, and if somebody just does not have the ability and doesnt want to love the opposite sex, then i say allow them to be a homosexual, it is their decision, and they probably understand consequences

#25 Tetiel

Tetiel
  • 11,532 posts


Users Awards

Posted 08 May 2006 - 05:25 PM

Just because you have religious beliefs dosent mean you need to disagree with others beliefs >_>

Ummm... and you're disagreeing with his beliefs through his statements. By having an opinion you disagree with the other side so yes... because he has religious beliefs he does need to disagree with the other side :p That's what having an opinion is about.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users