Homosexual marriage - do you agree?

1. Kiss a guy in a sexual/provocative way no i wouldnt. Why? Because i have no desire/urges to kiss a man.

2 not really religious but i dont care if people wanna be gay let them be gay, it aint gonna affect me in any way unless all the women turn lesbian :gasp:

3 hmmmm i dunno, see the person makes a good parent regardless of whether theyre straight or not i think. But i dunno im not totally for homosexuals adopting, i think it might be a bit stressfull for the child when hes a little older. Then again though, if this is a child growing up in bad surroundings, whats the harm in putting him to a better home regardless of the parents sexuality.

Il maybe elaborate on my thoughts later, its gettin late and im tiredxD
 
1) If you had the opportunity to kiss a member of the same sex, would you? And why (if possible)?
i'm into girls but into a relationship so no some kisses are a form of cheating

2) If you are religious (or even if you're not), do you consider homosexuality to be morally right or wrong, and why?
not religious i respect religious people not fundies trough

3) If gay or lesbian partners were to adopt a child, would you consider them to be good parents?
No and Yes their sexuality doesn't make them better or worse parents then anyone else if they are good then good if there bad parents then their bad
 
1) If you had the opportunity to kiss a member of the same sex, would you? And why (if possible)?

Only if it was Bellamy, and that's never going to happen :wacky:

2) If you are religious (or even if you're not), do you consider homosexuality to be morally right or wrong, and why?

I don't think that homosexuality is such a big deal. It annoys me that our country (America) is so strongly influenced by beliefs of one religion, though. >.>

3) If gay or lesbian partners were to adopt a child, would you consider them to be good parents?

being good parents is extremely irrelevant to your gender, I think.
 
1) If you had the opportunity to kiss a member of the same sex, would you? And why (if possible)?

Definitely not? No offense here, but I'm totally uninterested, and a little disgusted, somehow. (Though I'm able to condone it, strangely)

2) If you are religious (or even if you're not), do you consider homosexuality to be morally right or wrong, and why?

I don't really think it morally wrong, more of the mindset, upbringing. To me, it's more in the head, than it is religious.

3) If gay or lesbian partners were to adopt a child, would you consider them to be good parents?

I don't know for sure. It's totally different for everyone, I'm sure. After all, it's a matter of mindset, mentality all over again. If the parents aim to educate, and give the child a great childhood, and perhaps, freedom on his sexuality, I don't see how they are bad parents. (Of course, sexuality is back to the child's decision. To me, I believe Homosexuality to really be a matter of personal choice)
 
1) If you had the opportunity to kiss a member of the same sex, would you? And why (if possible)?
I would say no, it not that I have anything against it. I just dont think I would be able to get into it. There is just something about kissing a girl that drives me crazy.

2) If you are religious (or even if you're not), do you consider homosexuality to be morally right or wrong, and why?
Not at all, if someone wants to be gay/lesbian they have every right to. I really dont care what the bible says, if its love its love.

3) If gay or lesbian partners were to adopt a child, would you consider them to be good parents?
Yes, like most people said, it wouldnt matter if they are gay or not. That makes no difference, it is how the people will treat the kid, that is the only thing you have to worry about.
 
^^Why do you believe that? If you're disgusted by kissing other men, you didn't choose to like women, and if you did, you're just repressed.

Anyways,
1) Yes. I'm attracted primarily to other women, though not adverse to men, and I prefer to just describe my sexual preference as indiscriminate...

2) It's irrelevant, because what's moral? There's dispute about it within every major religion. For me, someone who's not particularly religious, I don't care if it's right or wrong because it's something I'm going to do for my own happiness regardless.

3) Yes. There's no evidence to suggest that they wouldn't be, and considering that the traditional nuclear family is far from the norm, two homos as parents isn't the most traumatic thing that could happen to a kid.
 
1) If you had the opportunity to kiss a member of the same sex, would you? And why (if possible)?

I probably would, because I'd like to have the experience. And I've been bi-questioning for a few years.​

2) If you are religious (or even if you're not), do you consider homosexuality to be morally right or wrong, and why?

I'm not religious. I feel that homosexuality is not, in any way, immoral; love is unconditional. Homosexuals are the people who bypassed the "survival of the fitest," since they are much less likely to reproduce. But seriously, I don't see why it should be deemed morally wrong; it just disturbs traditionalists because a.) the Bible makes a hissy fit over it, b.) they are acustomed to a society that demotes it - which could vary from the view that it's just strange, to evil.​

3) If gay or lesbian partners were to adopt a child, would you consider them to be good parents?

Assuming that the parents are a supportive couple, and raise their child in a loving and responsible household, yes, but a part of me says that negative effects could result. The only reason I feel it could have bad effects is because it would most likely cause the child to develop a lack of self-esteem due to feelings of diversity from others, just as they would likely develop being raised by a single parent. Humans are subect to genetic programing (human nature) and emotional programing (tradition), and are "programmed," so to speak, to be raised by a mom and a dad, so yeah.​
 
Last edited:
Franice said:
^^Why do you believe that? If you're disgusted by kissing other men, you didn't choose to like women, and if you did, you're just repressed.

Anyways,
1) Yes. I'm attracted primarily to other women, though not adverse to men, and I prefer to just describe my sexual preference as indiscriminate...

2) It's irrelevant, because what's moral? There's dispute about it within every major religion. For me, someone who's not particularly religious, I don't care if it's right or wrong because it's something I'm going to do for my own happiness regardless.

3) Yes. There's no evidence to suggest that they wouldn't be, and considering that the traditional nuclear family is far from the norm, two homos as parents isn't the most traumatic thing that could happen to a kid.
Click to expand...

I didnt say I was disgusted by it, I just wouldnt be into it. To be more frank than I wanted to be, I would probaly try it.
 
Sorry, I meant the post above you. I walked away from the comp for a while and never refreshed before posting. Didn't see your reply. >>
 
1)
I'd kiss Jimmy page and that's about it. It's not that I'm particularly opposed to kissing guys, it's just that I'm not gay so I'm not going to get anything out of it.

2) Neither, being heterosexual imo isn't morally wrong or right so nor is being a homosexual.

3) How could someone's sexual oreintation affect their ability to raise a child. In general, yes.
 
1) If you had the opportunity to kiss a member of the same sex, would you? And why (if possible)?

No. I don't sway that way and I am happily committed in my current relationship.


2) If you are religious (or even if you're not), do you consider homosexuality to be morally right or wrong, and why?

I'm not religious. I don't consider it to be wrong but I do however dislike it when certain homosexuals decide to put their sexuality out there for everyone to see.

"HEY LOOK AT ME I LOVE MEN/GIRLS. I'M GAY."

Yeah that's great. You don't see too many straight people screaming out that they're straight and love the opposite sex.


3) If gay or lesbian partners were to adopt a child, would you consider them to be good parents?

It really just depends. It doesn't matter what sexuality you are, you will always get your good people and your bad people. A straight parent could be the laziest, drugged up person around who cares shit all about their kids.

Then you find a gay couple who would do anything for their children. For them to go out of their way to adopt a child says alot. They obviously go through a lot of checks just like straight people do when adopting, if not more because of their sexual orientation.

It isn't fair to say that a straight couple would do a better job because they're straight. The father could rape his kids and the mother not give a shit.

That would scar a child more than having same-sex parents in my opinion.

So yeah it really just depends on who the person is. Not what sexual orientation they are.
 
Last edited:
1) If you had the opportunity to kiss a member of the same sex, would you? And why (if possible)?

I'd probably kiss Bob Marley, just because people will benefit from his music for generations.. I mean come on, the dude is brilliant.


2) If you are religious (or even if you're not), do you consider homosexuality to be morally right or wrong, and why?

Nah Homosexuality is not wrong at all to be honest. You were born that way, I mean that would be like telling me.. Hey you sir are wrong for loving Grilled Cheese sandwiches. I would never be able to resist a grilled cheese sandwich son!

Only thing that gets on my nerves would be thinking people are special for being gay or straight. There is nothing special about either, it's just a preference. I'm straight and will never swing the way of Elton John, but I have a friend I grew up with who did, so no judgement passed.

3) If gay or lesbian partners were to adopt a child, would you consider them to be good parents?

Sure, but honestly we have a girl who's bi in our office, who's very very pretty. Her kid is an angel as well, and she's one of the nicest people I've met. Her partner is really nice as well, we all played softball together for our work team.
 
1) If you had the opportunity to kiss a member of the same sex, would you? And why (if possible)?

David Bowie. Don't ask.

2) If you are religious (or even if you're not), do you consider homosexuality to be morally right or wrong, and why?

I'm of the mindset that what two consenting adults do between them is their own business. With that, this question is kind of pointless... as it is none of my business, or yours either =)

3) If gay or lesbian partners were to adopt a child, would you consider them to be good parents?

Yes. First of all, homosexual couples don't have accidental children. They're prepared for it. Secondly, people who adopt are screened thoroughly by adoption agencies. I'll have to find their sources, but Penn & Teller stated in an episode of 'Bullshit' that children of homosexual couples tend to commit fewer crimes, are more likely to go to college, earn more money as adults, and are no more likely to be gay than a child raised by heterosexual parents (as you're born that way). So, actually, they tend to make better parents than a lot of hetersexual couples. This is probably due to the first two points made in this paragraph.
 
Here is my thoughts on homosexual marriage.

What happens when a man and a woman fall in love to the extent that they cannot live without one another? The couple usually decide to get married. It is a religious sacrament that has been blessed to those who wish to take their relationship to a deeper commitment. There are some that argue love has no limits, however, certain types of love such as homosexuality can be damaging to society and difficult to understand. For instance, homosexuals desire the privilege to wed, but marriage has been between a man and a woman for thousands of years, and it should remain that way.

Why should homosexuals be denied the right to marriage? As stated before, marriage is a religious sacrament. Some religions have a long history, which they are required to maintain because of the God they worship. Most do not accept homosexuality. In fact, they consider it to be sinful because homosexuals cannot procreate or do not follow the man and woman custom. It would not be right or fair to change a religion’s long history simply because a group of individuals are different.

Furthermore, homosexual marriage would weaken traditional family values vital to society. A traditional family has always been comprised of a man, woman, and children. America has had rugged times in history such as the great depression and several wars. Conversely, the family has been what people could depend on through the hardships. Recent times have proven that weaken family standards have caused society’s principles to fall. Another form of family would further cripple the heart of culture.

Most marriages lead to children. Since homosexuals are unable to have children, they are more likely to adopt them. This may cause confusion for the children who are adopted because they will have parents of the same gender. How will they be able to relate to children who have the traditional family? They will not be able to, which would make it unfair for the child with homosexual parents. Some can argue that education will solve this problem, but it is hard to erase traditional family ties. This may effect the surrounding kids to tease and isolate individuals with homosexual parents.

There needs to be a solid definition of marriage because there are more groups that want the right too. If homosexuals were allowed to get married, what would stop another group from seeking the same entitlement? Some might decide they want to marry their parent, sister, dog, or have multiple partners. A gate is open to one group it will be opened to others. For that reason, marriage should remain consistent.

The homosexual lifestyle is also considered unhealthy. It has been proven through sexuality surveys, in the United States, that homosexuals live 20 years younger than the general population. Marriage should not approve something that is dangerous to the well being of an individual.

Marriage has been between a man and a woman. It has been sacred for thousands of years, and homosexuality is seen as a sin in most religions. Homosexuals should not be given the right to marriage because there are too many risks that can occur. For one, traditional family is the building block of society, and it would be destructive to change it. Children of homosexual parents would have to adapt to the hardships that the environment, such as people, would create. Though it may seem unfair to homosexuals, the definition of marriage must be constant because opening the door to one group would lead others to follow. Lastly, homosexuals lifestyle causes them to live on average twenty years younger than the general population. Something as valuable as marriage should not have to agree with the particular way of life.
 
AngelichottieDS said:
Furthermore, homosexual marriage would weaken traditional family values vital to society. A traditional family has always been comprised of a man, woman, and children. America has had rugged times in history such as the great depression and several wars. Conversely, the family has been what people could depend on through the hardships. Recent times have proven that weaken family standards have caused society’s principles to fall. Another form of family would further cripple the heart of culture.
Click to expand...

Well since this thread is certainly in the debate forum, you are entitled to your opinion, and trust me I never thought I would argue for gay/bi people across the world as a heterosexual male myself.. but I'm gonna have to say that you are throwing way to much religious bias at this post.

As an American myself I hardly see your argument as even ground to family values in which we uphold. If anything America has changed so freakin drastically that people don't even realize it and what you are arguing is a tad bit backwards. Let me refresh you, since you are against this one gay right, let's look back to women rights in America; when they were less empowered and always forced to hold their tongue in a marriage. A divorce was only innitiated by the male, and the child had to be solely raised by the wife while the man worked. It was the male's job to spend their money and beating the wife/child was something that was considered... normal and just. Now by no fawking means do I agree with any of this.. but times have changed, and so have "family values" as you call them.

So by a gay woman having a kid with another gay woman , or vise versa, it provokes change. Change in which is way to overly needed, I mean for a person not to be able to have a kid all because their sexual preference.. meh, tad bit screwed up.

So you did throw religion a good bit in there, and I don't want a religious rebuttle since I'm a very non expressive talker on religion. All I can say to you though is, homosexuality has been there as long as heterosexuality. In the ancient Roman times men would have sex with other men in bath houses, clergy would do the same.

So for America, I don't think we can deny them of their rights for long. It's only a matter of time, and I hope it's sooner than later. I know some good bisexual mom's out there who I am proud to call my friends. I may get pissed.. and this is only being honest when a gay man openly goes around and flaunts his feminine side and then says.. "don't know you.. I'm gay" like it gives him some sort of privelage. I'm like.. okay.. and? Don't you know .. I'm straight, give me a gold star mmkay? I agree in being proud, but come on, being gay is nothing new. Also your sexual business and my sexual business, well that's our sexual business, so yes I may still get a little.. erked inside, but that's because I'm straight.

Marriage has been between a man and a woman. It has been sacred for thousands of years, and homosexuality is seen as a sin in most religions. Homosexuals should not be given the right to marriage because there are too many risks that can occur. For one, traditional family is the building block of society, and it would be destructive to change it. Children of homosexual parents would have to adapt to the hardships that the environment, such as people, would create. Though it may seem unfair to homosexuals, the definition of marriage must be constant because opening the door to one group would lead others to follow. Lastly, homosexuals lifestyle causes them to live on average twenty years younger than the general population. Something as valuable as marriage should not have to agree with the particular way of life.
Click to expand...

Sacred in what ways? I agree I too want to get married one day, but my money is limiting me to propose to my current girlfriend. But I don't see where you can get off by saying it's the building block of society, what ever happened to America being a free world nation. We can't force people into little bubbles and incapsulate them so they don't spread their germ as you seem to be displaying it as. If I was denied to have a kid.. I would do whatever in my power to make it so to have one, legally that is.

You are saying that it would be destructive to change it.. well I will say one thing, our damn nation has been needing a revolution of change for a century now. We are at the edge of economic fallout as a whole, and people can't even be allowed to have kids because of this "so called" society you speak of. Americans can't come together because people are unable to coexist with different opinions. The kid is only rejected because people can't pull their heads out of their arse. Times have changed, there are drag queens, there are people getting sex changes, gays don't have to hide behind their closed in closet lifestyle. So to have a kid, I think it would only be fair as, the dude or lady isn't any different than me, and his kid isn't going to be screwed up, as long as society is actually willing to change.

I definitely agree straight families will need adjusting, because it's a newer thing to see Homosexuals to have kids, but I almost see us as getting closer as a human species in America at least for a "centralized" utopia. We just gotta bring the new.. and stop rejecting change, unless of course it means me losing money for stupid reasons.
 
AngelichottieDS said:
Marriage has been between a man and a woman. It has been sacred for thousands of years, and homosexuality is seen as a sin in most religions. Homosexuals should not be given the right to marriage because there are too many risks that can occur. For one, traditional family is the building block of society, and it would be destructive to change it. Children of homosexual parents would have to adapt to the hardships that the environment, such as people, would create. Though it may seem unfair to homosexuals, the definition of marriage must be constant because opening the door to one group would lead others to follow. Lastly, homosexuals lifestyle causes them to live on average twenty years younger than the general population. Something as valuable as marriage should not have to agree with the particular way of life.
Click to expand...

Correction: Family was the building block of society.

You know, back when it had political, economic, and social repercussions. Back when your twelve year old daughter was traded to your half-retarded, forty-five year old neighbor for a goat and condemned to produce quarter-retarded kids until she died from it.

The pretty, sweet, totally consensual idea of marriage we have to day is only a couple hundred years old, and millions of miles away from it's original intent. And totally un-biblical to boot.

The definition of marriage cannot be constant because it is in a perpetual state of flux. The roles of husbands and wives has changed drastically in even the last fifty years, and it is totally unrealistic to expect this to stop. The only thing we can do is....

Adapt!

Adaptation is the lifeblood of our species, and we're great at it. Yeah, maybe kids will have to face some flack from other kids(and some rather maladjusted adults), but they're going to...guess what?! Adapt! And become...well adapted individuals! Hoorah! And eventually, society as a whole will consist of mostly well adapted individuals, who realize homosexuality as part of human nature, and the prejudice will largely disappear.

What's odd about most people who claim that homosexual marriage will be destructive can't actually explain what it's going to destroy...Let's see...maybe rigid, irrational, and largely irrelevant "values" ? ¡Que horrible!

As for people marrying their dog, I doubt it. Do you want to fuck a dog? I don't. I don't know a lot of people who do. And anyways, I'm pretty sure you've got to sign something to get married, and I haven't got much hope for dogs randomly developing the ability to do that.

I don't see how children of homosexual parents will be unable to relate to children of heterosexual parents. I've never once discussed my parents sexual behavior with my friends. I've never asked about their parents sexual behavior. And other than my having been conceived, what they do in their bed hasn't had an effect on me. You also don't really see children with single parents having any real difficulty relating to other children. So, explain, please, what is it I'm missing?

As for the whole thing about homosexuals living twenty years less --no. There is no such thing as a homosexual lifestyle. It's not, like, fucking extreme sports. It's just the sexual attraction to people of the same gender. Nothing to fear. It doesn't turn you into a druggie buttsex addict in the fast lane to hell. Come back with a nonbiased, statistically valid study, and then we'll talk.

Lastly, society's principals are not dropping. They're changing. For the better. It's becoming harder to stuff ourselves into an archaic mold, and it's time we stop trying to and just go with it.

PS: I really need to learn to fucking think/write faster. >=/
 
Here's my two cents on this. I believe it's wrong, but I don't see homosexuality as a state of being, but as an action. After all, sex in and of itself is an action, not a state of being.

Anyway, the biggest point I want to make here is that because I don't see it as a state of being, I don't hate homosexuals. They may have engaged in homosexual activity, which I don't approve of, but that doesn't mean I can't be friends with them, that doesn't mean they can't be a good person or anything.

Heck, my cousin is gay. He kind of makes me uncomfortable sometimes, but I think that's just him being himself, he's not a bad person.

I hope I haven't offended anyone by saying I don't approve of the action, but that's just the way I am.
 
I don't see why there is anything wrong with it...my ex used to be bi-sexual...yes it did bother me cause he was mine and i didnt like the thought of him kissing other men but...he wasnt hurting anyone...he has two friends how are gay...they are abit like my friends...and they are happily engaged...they look so cute together :D i think they are gonig to get married next year i think
 
imdyinginside said:
I don't see why there is anything wrong with it...my ex used to be bi-sexual...yes it did bother me cause he was mine and i didnt like the thought of him kissing other men but...he wasnt hurting anyone...he has two friends how are gay...they are abit like my friends...and they are happily engaged...they look so cute together :D i think they are gonig to get married next year i think
Click to expand...


Ahh cute! I wouldn't be able to date a bisexual, i want my man to only be into girls- i'd be freaked out if we were both checking out hot men haha!
Anyway, I come from gay capital of the UK so I am very tolerant of homosexuality. I have gay friends, and fully support their right to get married. Why should they be second rate citizens just because they fall in love with the same sex??

You should marry whoever you love and who makes you happy regardless of gender. Although I do cross the line at people marrying their pets- wtf is up with that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top