Ban on Gay Marriage (4 Viewers)

[KeypadSDM]

Man, I love reading back threads, I still can't believe some people keep forgetting marriage is a religious institution. You want to be married, join a religion that allows one, otherwise deal with it, marriage isn't for you. (Which brings up another point, how come the government allows marriage between non-religious people? - Why the hypocrisy?)

 

[kochou]

whaat...i didn't know marriage was for religious reasons, that wouldn't make sense!

 

[KeypadSDM]

Nah, it's a religious institution. I.e. religion invented it. Sure, if they want to make up another word for it, like "joined" then that should be what non-religious and gay relationships should culminate to.

The least we can do is give religion a little bit of leeway here, they did invent the word, so they should govern its meaning.

 

[johnson]

Originally posted by KeypadSDM
Nah, it's a religious institution. I.e. religion invented it. Sure, if they want to make up another word for it, like "joined" then that should be what non-religious and gay relationships should culminate to.

The least we can do is give religion a little bit of leeway here, they did invent the word, so they should govern its meaning.

christianity is not the only religion which 'invented' marriage, dude.

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by johnson
christianity is not the only religion which 'invented' marriage, dude.

[Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier, to marry. See marry1.]

The French were Christian

 

[Xayma]

Originally posted by neo_o
[Middle English mariage, from Old French, from marier, to marry. See marry1.]

The French were Christian

Just because you invent the word doesnt mean you invented the idea.

 

[johnson]

^ yeah, what he said.

my point was that marriage is not just a religious construct anyway, it is also a social institution due to changing values. just because you are married it does not mean you are christian, or even religious for that matter

 

[400miles]

Firstly I agree with people saying that the government has gone too far... they have no right to say this is wrong. Some people have come back with ridiculous examples like 'Can the goverment say that killing is wrong?' Of course they can but that's irrelevant. There's a huge difference between taking someone's life unwillingly and two people being in love...
Does gay union hurt anyone? The couple would be together anyway with or without marriage? Why deny them something which should be their right and privilage?
If John Howard finds a reason why the union of homosexuals is wrong or how it negatively affects someone then I'll accept his decision... but chances are he can't do that, and that's because there's no reason I can see why homosexuals can't take that extra step.

 

[ihatecensorship]

I dont think they should get married. because it would cause to many fights as too who would wear the dressss...

We shouldnt open the floood gates for gay rights, it will just get out of hand, and we will have gays on tv and have them close down a streeet one night a year to show offf their pooofnesss. Actually that already happens-- god dam gays get back in the closet where you belong.

just kidding.

Yeah 400 miles is right let them get married. whats the idea behind your nick 400 miles?????

 

[400miles]

Originally posted by ihatecensorship
whats the idea behind your nick 400 miles?????

It comes from a song '400 miles from Darwin'

 

[Generator]

Originally posted by johnson
christianity is not the only religion which 'invented' marriage, dude.

He didn't single out christianity...

I can see his point. Although, given the fact that marriage has become more of a civil than religious service, the religous stance taken over the gay marriage issue has little merit (However, this does not question why purely civil marriages are equal to religous marriages. It is kind of obvious in realising that it is part of the power struggle between the church and state, though).

 

[Hotdog1]

only in an election year....

 

[budj]

homosexuals. They are humans. Therefore give them equal righs as everyone else.

 

[Ribbon]

I disagree homosexuals should be able to have a seperate civil union... having a seperate type of marraige for homosexuals will only servce to further segregate them from the rest of the community and encourage bigoted and discrimanatory attitudes.

Oh and to whoever said 'the distinction is that homosexuals cannot procreate naturally'... homosexuals do have the ability to procreate naturally they just choose not to!

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by Ribbon

Oh and to whoever said 'the distinction is that homosexuals cannot procreate naturally'... homosexuals do have the ability to procreate naturally they just choose not to!

And if they choose to why should they be given extra rights

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by budj
homosexuals. They are humans. Therefore give them equal righs as everyone else.

it's been said before, homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else, they can marry whoever they want, as long as its a member of the opposite sex...

...just like everyone else

 

[400miles]

Originally posted by neo_o
And if they choose to why should they be given extra rights

If they choose not to why should they be given extra rights?

 

[Ziff]

A homosexual pair cannot procreate naturally which is the purpose of marriage. Because they choose not to procreate they should be penalised for it by not being able to marry, however, civil unions are a good idea.

 

[eviltama]

Originally posted by Ziff
A homosexual pair cannot procreate naturally which is the purpose of marriage. Because they choose not to procreate they should be penalised for it by not being able to marry, however, civil unions are a good idea.

A homosexual pair CAN procreate naturally, homosexuality != sterility. The purpose of marriage is to allow 2 people to marry to the exclusion of all others for life. (Current def of course is 1 male + 1 female) Marriage has nothing to do with procreation...
As for being penalised, isnt it punishing enough that they are seen as inferior by others because they don't choose to couple with a member of the oppsite sex? isnt the discrimination in the workplace, on the street, among family and friends enough? WTF DO THEY ALSO NEED TO BE PUNISHED WITH?!

They suffer enough external punishment, as well as internal punishment because our society has branded homosexuality as 'wrong' they see themselves as 'wrong'. Homosexuals don't only have to put up with external taunting and teasing they also have to work through their own issues just like everyone else. Only everyone elses issues are more along the lines of 'should i get with this person? should i drop out of school? should i stay a virgin till i marry' etc. I'd like to see homophobes try and deal with what homosexuals do, they wouldnt be able to cop the shit but yet they can give it out.

Now back onto procreation and marriage. 2 seperate entities. As far apart as rape and consentual sex. No one marries to procreate any more, people marry for love (or because they did get someone preggers ) but no one marries for the explicit reason of procreation hence thats a load of bs. Marriage = love no matter what gender the 2 parties entering into it may be.

civil unions are fine and dandy for people who don't want to go all the way... same with de facto relationships. But sadly enough our society brings us up to believe that one day we will marry the love of our life, its not their fault that the love of their life happens to be of the same sex.

 

[Ziff]

Playing swords won't create children!

You've purposely missed the point and not taken notice of "homosexual pair" meaning "with each other" and not "yeah I'm gonna go and use some non-natural method that I shoudn't be entitled to because I have chosen a lifestyle which biologically restricts me from having a child with my partner."

Get this straight. It is impossible to NATURALLY create a child between a woman and a woman or a man and a man. It just doesn't happen. One of these combinations lack SPERM and the other lacks OVA. Now when the penis goes into the vagina - OH WE HAVE A PROBLEM HERE!!!

You seem to either ignore the underlying meaning to principals in someone's statement and just use the first word you see to go off on a rigiorous and tiring polemnic that no one particularly cares about.