Homosexual marriage - do you agree?

I don't really see a problem with letting homosexuals marry. It's not like it'll harm anyone. The one and only thing that differs homosexuals and heterosexuals are the gender they like. Otherwise they're completely the same, and it's such a small detail too I don't know why people make such a big fuzz about it.

People who starts going religious on your ass with "In the bible, it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Adam!" Grow some balls. Just because it's not mentioned in the bible that two people of the same sex found each other attractive doesn't make it a sin. I can understand if people find it "disgusting" to see "two gay guys kiss", but seriously; what's the fucking problem? Unless they're sadists, I don't think they'll force you to watch.

If someone's got something against gay marriage, give a VALID reason, and not just some stupid religious bullshit. Homosexuality is NATURAL. Deal with it.
 
Archideas said:
I don't really see a problem with letting homosexuals marry. It's not like it'll harm anyone. The one and only thing that differs homosexuals and heterosexuals are the gender they like. Otherwise they're completely the same, and it's such a small detail too I don't know why people make such a big fuzz about it.

People who starts going religious on your ass with "In the bible, it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Adam!" Grow some balls. Just because it's not mentioned in the bible that two people of the same sex found each other attractive doesn't make it a sin. I can understand if people find it "disgusting" to see "two gay guys kiss", but seriously; what's the fucking problem? Unless they're sadists, I don't think they'll force you to watch.

If someone's got something against gay marriage, give a VALID reason, and not just some stupid religious bullshit. Homosexuality is NATURAL. Deal with it.
Click to expand...

Not to go all bible on ya but.... it mentions more than just Adam and Eve. It also says that men who lie with men with not inherit god's kingdom.

Also some blind guys got blinded in the bible because the were acting all gay so... is it a sin... that's for you to decide...
 
Well I agree the bible says it is wrong, but since the bible was written by a bunch of idiot, sexist, ignorant men...

Homosexuality is natural in ALL mammals (including humans), many reptiles/amphibians, birds and even insects. Homosexuality was never an issue in the Greek times. There were as many as today but they were more open about it as people never thought anything of it. Then along came organized religion.
 
I dont really care about homos. As long as they're sucking each others cocks without bothering me, I could really care less.
Click to expand...
See thats one of the biggest problems. Women dont have cocks. I love how when we think gay/homosexual we think of men first. Why is that? And anyway, homosexual relationships are no different than htero when it comes to sex. For some homos/heteros its very much about sex, for thoers not so much. Being homosexual isnt solely about sex. Its about who you are comfortbale with, and feel right with. I just dont feel right with men in relationships and /or sex. I feel more comfortable with women and find them more attractive and beautiful etc. So what? Im gay and thats that. Even if I stop dating girls IM STILL GAY- so there is nothing I can do.

That's were you are wrong. They were inspired by god to write the bible.

There is no proof of that without using circular reasoning. Also, there is evidence to the contrary, both historical and scientific. If I find a book with predictions, and I'm planning on writing a book for someone to meet them...obviously I'm going to write that he did. But lets not go into this here.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Weather the people who wrote the Bible were inspired by god or not. Just because it says being Homosexual is wrong, doesn't mean it is.

There are SO many variable to put into the picture here. What would god do if he met a man who he got along greatly with, then to find out he's gay?

The bible also says to treat others like you would like to be treated. Does that mean if your homophobic that you'd hate yourself if you were gay also?

So many things contradict one another in religion. I'm not saying it's evil. But don't let IT set your morals. Being gay is NOT a sin. I don't care what god says. What would happen it god turned out to be gay? All those that believe in him wouldn't know what to believe.
 
Last edited:
If God didn't want people to be homosexual, then he'd never have made us with that 'flaw' or what have you. Anyway, let's try and keep this on-topic and not allow it to stray into an argument of religion or the bible, okay?
 
Okay guys, this is the final warning. Please please stop discussing the bible in this thread. If you must discuss the bible and it's 'prophecies' then please create an individual thread for it. You're taking this thread way beyond it's original topic now. The posts that strayed from the original topic have been deleted. Do not repost them. Thank you.
 
Since I'm not particularly certain where things stand at the moment...I'll just answer the question in the OP...hopefully getting things back on track. :wacky:

As far as homosexuality itself...I don't really care. I don't personally agree with the practice, but it's not my place to decide everyone's code of morals. So long as I'm being left alone...they can do whatever they want. So that's that.

The original question, though, was about my personal stance on the issue of homosexual marriage. Since I'm from the States, my views on the issue will be reflected on our social policy and our political system. Forgive me for not addressing the issue universally, but I'm not too keen on how other nations formulate their policies and whatnot. But I'm sure we'll get into that later.

Again, I personally disagree with the practice. However, I also believe that the laws of the land are not meant to codify morals. As such, I think that the practice of outlawing any sort of marriage is unnecessary. In the United States, there was a big push a few years back to even add a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between "one man, one woman". Even though I agree with that definition personally, the making of a law to define that is completely unnecessary. I think, from a legal standpoint, there should be a referendum on these sorts of laws. Take a vote, and let the people decide, if you're going to legislate the definition of the term "marriage".

My problem with the whole issue is this: What's the big deal? Marriage is just a legal union...and not much else. Homosexuality has always been a part of human culture. So, why the sudden huge issue? I'd imagine the best answer would be "it's about equality", but no one said that homosexuals weren't equal...the law was just never prepared to deal with such issues.

Bottom line, I don't see the need for this to be a huge political issue. I personally don't agree with homosexuality. However, if homosexual marriage was ever legalized, I would be fine with that (as long as the means were legitimate).
 
I'm not against it, but I don't support it. It's one of those things I don't necessarily pay attention to. Although, I do believe that if two people mutually love eachother and they want to get married.. why not? I'm not going to see these people live their lives, I'm not going to associate myself with them, and it's purely none of my business.

Even though I do have homo/bisexual friends, I, myself, am actually quite homophobic. I try not to let that get the best of me though because homosexuals are human beings just like the rest of us. Not liking someone because of who or how they love is just as pathetic as not liking someone because of their eye shape or skin colour.
 
Last edited:
Well i'm actually Catholic but I think that if a couple loves each other then it shouldn't be wrong to get married. There is no harm in having a gay couple have a marriage license, people have this idea that it would "ruin the concept of marrige" which btw is pretty much jacked up already since the divorce rate is what 60% now? Marriage should be based on the love for one another not on gender. I myself am not a homosexual and in the future if I had a friend who was and was married then it wouldn't personally bother me.
 
Last edited:
It should be left up to individual pastors and their churches.

Should pastors and churches be forced to perform homosexual marriages if they do not want to? No.

Should pastors and churches who are fine with doing it, be prevented from doing so? No.

Should gays get the same legal rights as straight couples? Yes.

This opinion is subject to change, because I am becoming increasingly frustrated with the current gay community. Terrorizing churches, and forcing their agenda on people who don't support it is just wrong.

I don't see as many straights going around having "straight" pride parades, do you?

It's just like blacks. They don't want to be "equal", they want to get ahead.

"Negro college fund", "black history month", all of these things offend me.

I want a "white college fund" and a "white history month", kthx.

And I'll say it, I'm proud to be white.

Sorry for being off-topic, but I think it kind of goes together.
 
Axmann said:
This opinion is subject to change, because I am becoming increasingly frustrated with the current gay community. Terrorizing churches, and forcing their agenda on people who don't support it is just wrong.

I don't see as many straights going around having "straight" pride parades, do you?

It's just like blacks. They don't want to be "equal", they want to get ahead.

"Negro college fund", "black history month", all of these things offend me.

I want a "white college fund" and a "white history month", kthx.

And I'll say it, I'm proud to be white.

Sorry for being off-topic, but I think it kind of goes together.
Click to expand...

I find this to be discrimination. Just because their isn't a White collage fund doesn't mean they want to get "ahead". Thats taking a racial side to issues. What does being black or white have to do with being homosexual?

And the reason for the parades is for acceptance. Something that straight people don't need cause its always been there.
 
I personally don't hold the opinion that being homosexual is natural for human beings. Be offended if you like, it's not intended that way - I am not a homophobic - to me it just comes down to science, and the natural way life has always continued.

I don't see how evolution would make sense, if it were natural for some humans to make procreation impossible, without medical intervention. It is the natural way of all living organisms to preserve and continue reproduction of their species; it is probably our most primitive instinct: to reproduce. As with all life.

Having said that, don't go start thinking I'm all for hate on homosexuals. That is certainly not the case. People are entitled to live their life as to what they see as natural for them, and I have no say in that and nor should anyone. I do not support hatred or mistreating of any human being, for their own personal choices, or in this case (as I'm told it's not a choice) what they feel is who they are.

They are not hurting anyone, and in fact the idea that they want to be married? I welcome. Marriage is a beautiful thing between two people. And there is no reason to reject their decision to enjoy it, as much as any heterosexual couple would.

However, I don't understand why some homosexual couples feel the need to demand the Church be forced to marry them. If you are homosexual, why would it even appeal to you to be married in a church? An institute that beleives that homosexuality is a sin.

Is it just for statement? To dig it into the churches? I find that somewhat obnoxious, to be honest. I really don't understand the reasoning behind wanting Churches to allow homosexual marriage to take place in their buildings. That should be for the Churches to decide, and personally, I don't see why they would allow it, instead of following what they hold to be true. Which is their own right to do so.

But I do beleive same-sex marriages should be legal, and performed by the state.
 
Ethereal said:
I personally don't hold the opinion that being homosexual is natural for human beings. Be offended if you like, it's not intended that way - I am not a homophobic - to me it just comes down to science, and the natural way life has always continued.

I don't see how evolution would make sense, if it were natural for some humans to make procreation impossible, without medical intervention. It is the natural way of all living organisms to preserve and continue reproduction of their species; it is probably our most primitive instinct: to reproduce. As with all life.
Click to expand...
I find that argument slightly fallacious.
If every man and woman got married and 2.4 kids the Earth would be over populated. Also if people procreated to advance the human race only the healthiest people would be allowed to have children.
It's kind of a moot point though.

However, I don't understand why some homosexual couples feel the need to demand the Church be forced to marry them. If you are homosexual, why would it even appeal to you to be married in a church? An institute that beleives that homosexuality is a sin.

Is it just for statement? To dig it into the churches? I find that somewhat obnoxious, to be honest. I really don't understand the reasoning behind wanting Churches to allow homosexual marriage to take place in their buildings. That should be for the Churches to decide, and personally, I don't see why they would allow it, instead of following what they hold to be true. Which is their own right to do so.
Click to expand...
Marriage, as opposed to a civil union has a different legal status. In Australia there's a gay high court judge or senator, I'm not exactly sure on what, but his partner won't get his pension when the judge dies, however if it was a heterosexual relationship, the wife would get the pension. There's also a few other benefits that you get from marriage that you can't receive being in a civil union.
So I don't think they do it to spite the church, Anglicans are deciding whether or not to allow openly gay bishops to be clergymen, so making them marry gay people is probably not as important as that.
 
Axmann said:
This opinion is subject to change, because I am becoming increasingly frustrated with the current gay community. Terrorizing churches, and forcing their agenda on people who don't support it is just wrong.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, gays totally go around terrorizing churches. Examples or stfu.

I don't see as many straights going around having "straight" pride parades, do you?
Click to expand...

Nope, but straight couples aren't having basic rights of equality denied to them either. If you were being unfairly discriminated against, and didn't have the same rights as others just because everyone was so ass-backwards and demonizing you because of religious views, I'm sure you'd be in pride rallies too.

It's just like blacks. They don't want to be "equal", they want to get ahead.

"Negro college fund", "black history month", all of these things offend me.

I want a "white college fund" and a "white history month", kthx.

And I'll say it, I'm proud to be white.

Sorry for being off-topic, but I think it kind of goes together.
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't go together. It has nothing to do with gays, you just wanted to tie in a little racist rant to the rest of your post.
 
Let's all remain civil. It's not necessary to tell people 'stfu' or anything like that.
 
Rockman X said:
Oh yeah, gays totally go around terrorizing churches. Examples or stfu.
Click to expand...
It's okay.

It just further proves my point that liberals are the ones who are actually intolerant to different opinions.

Want examples of gays terrorizing others, though?

Okay. Here:

Gay leaders terrorize Boston church

Radical gay group terrorized Mount Hope Church, Lansing, MI

Voted for Prop 8? You're fired.

Gays mock Jesus with Last Supper take-off

Residents of homosexual district: 'We're going to kill you. We know who you are'

Oh yes, how very tolerant.
 
Axmann, I've been watching you in threads for awhile and have asked you before to watch it with your posts. There is a specific line that should not be crossed and you're beginning to tiptoe over that line. Either cool with the offensive post tone or you will be issued an infraction. It's as simple as that.

To everyone else, I understand you may be getting offended by specific posts and words, but as Morrissey said, let's try and remain civil and NOT resort to insulting. Thank you.
 
Axmann said:
It's okay.

It just further proves my point that liberals are the ones who are actually intolerant to different opinions.

Want examples of gays terrorizing others, though?

Okay. Here:

Gay leaders terrorize Boston church
Click to expand...

Lol, oh yeah, they're totally terrorizing that church. I love how the site makes it sound all violent and shit, then you watch the video and it's just a normal protest. Especially loved this part:

"Using a bullhorn, they illegally trampled through an adjoining Revolutionary War-era cemetery in order to be directly outside the church's windows."

Oh yeah, they're totally trampling through it. Walking on the sidewalk and everything. Yep. Trampling. And if it's so illegal, why pray tell are there tons of pictures of tombstones and such when I google the grave? Like, close up shots of tombstones, that you could only get by walking up next to them.

It's obvious those sites are biased, I'm not even bothering with the rest of your skewed sources.
 
Rockman X said:
Lol, oh yeah, they're totally terrorizing that church. I love how the site makes it sound all violent and shit, then you watch the video and it's just a normal protest. Especially loved this part:

"Using a bullhorn, they illegally trampled through an adjoining Revolutionary War-era cemetery in order to be directly outside the church's windows."

Oh yeah, they're totally trampling through it. Walking on the sidewalk and everything. Yep. Trampling. And if it's so illegal, why pray tell are there tons of pictures of tombstones and such when I google the grave? Like, close up shots of tombstones, that you could only get by walking up next to them.

It's obvious those sites are biased, I'm not even bothering with the rest of your skewed sources.
Click to expand...
I would be very interested in knowing how this is not offensive tone, but fulfilling this user's request for sources is.

Would someone please care to explain?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top