Ban on Gay Marriage (1 Viewer)

[Xayma]

Originally posted by Ziff
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!!!

It is also impossible for a transsexual marriage to naturally have a child.

Or if one of the two involved is sterile. Yet they are still legally allowed marriage.

 

[Ziff]

Sterility and problems of a medical nature are totally different. The person didn't choose to have those problems so they should be allowed access to reproduction technologies.

 

[bjorn989]

I think that gay people have exactly the same right to marriage as anyone else .... they have equal rights anyway.... it does not matter if it is natural or not... Are cars natural? i am not saying we should ban cars but te unnatural thing has no weight.

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by Ziff

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.

It's been explained to her a million times.

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by Ziff
Sterility and problems of a medical nature are totally different. The person didn't choose to have those problems so they should be allowed access to reproduction technologies.

it has not been proven that any or all gays have chosen to be gay

 

[eviltama]

-----
Originally posted by Ziff [/i]
Playing swords won't create children!
-----
Neither will plunging ur sword into stone...

-----
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."
-----
non-natural methods are used by hetero as well as homo.. and more hetero couples use such methods, more single hetero females use these methods and they should be less entitled than anyone to bring a child into this world. The homosexual lifestyle does not restrict you from having a child with your partner. Biologically only a male + female can produce a child, nothing says that child or that male and female are mutually exclusive. The child can be someone elses, the mother can be a surrogate and the father can be.. well whom ever he wants.

------
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!!!
------
IT IS FKN IMPOSSIBLE TO GET THROUGH TO IDIOTS LIKE YOU.

-------
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.
-------
Well it just happens when the things you lot talk about as reasons for not allowing gay marriages are stupid, totally illogical and completely ignorant to the reality that is homosexuality. It doesn't help when the lot of you are mentally lacking either.

 

[eviltama]

Originally posted by Ziff
Sterility and problems of a medical nature are totally different. The person didn't choose to have those problems so they should be allowed access to reproduction technologies.

No homosexual chose to be homosexual.

 

[eviltama]

Originally posted by neo_o
It's been explained to her a million times.

and i've explained this stuff to you probably as much, just shows how dense you are.

 

[KeypadSDM]

Originally posted by eviltama
-----
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!!!
------
IT IS FKN IMPOSSIBLE TO GET THROUGH TO IDIOTS LIKE YOU.

Explain to us again how it's natural for homosexuals to procreate?

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by eviltama
No homosexual chose to be homosexual.

This also has been explained to you with a variety of linkage etc etc. According to recent research, homosexuality is caused by a combination of environmental and genetic factors. Genetic factors can give someone a PREDISPOSITION to homosexuality (much like alcoholism for example), but will not make them a homosexual.

I think it's so cute that people uncomfortable with their sexuality, try to justify their sexual orientation by saying that "we were made that way and can't help it."

I can't be bothered trolling for posts but there is no point even trying to talk to you if all you do is quote what we say and whine that we are "so dense."

Additionally, if homosexuality was purely based upon genetics, unless it was some sort of common mutation, it OBVIOUSLY WOULD HAVE BEEN BRED OUT BY NOW. I know this was pointed out to you earlier but you just refused to understand. While I agree homosexuals are not sterile and can reproduce however, THEY CHOOSE NOT TO BECAUSE THEY PREFER DOING PEOPLE OF THE SAME SEX AND THEREFORE WONT PRO-CREATE.

 

[katie_tully]

This topic pisses me off. Why? Here's why.
Marriage is a "union", yes children a "union" between "man" and "woman". Yes children, a man and a woman. Why does does the line go "I now pronounce you man and wife?". Second point. I'm not religious, nor am I homophobic but I cannot for the life of my understand why they want to get married. The bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin and gays are frowned upon, so explain to me why you want to be unionated in a religious ceremony in a house of god...when, ha ha, he doesn't like you?
And as for this children caper. It is not natural for a man and a man, a woman and a woman to PROCREATE. If it were natural, we'd be going forth and procreating with there nearest species of human. Obviously you havent considered the ethics of raising a child in a gay house hold. The taunts, the fact the kid is going to be an irritating turd at the back of the class forever complaining in his overly flamboyant voice. Think of the natural couples, the MEN and WOMEN who can't natural concieve. Don't you think it's selfish that "gays" are jumping the que in science to have children. It's not natural. For the rest of us, it is. You have no argument, so shut up.

 

[lengstar]

meh, i personally don't care if they want to be married or not, its none of my business.
the bible also states that i should sacrifice animals, so anyone got a spare bull or lamb i could sacrifice?

 

[Ribbon]

oh please don't get me started on the bible I am heterosexual and there is no way in hell when I get married I am getting married in a church. Am I not allowed to marry because I'm not christian? Marraige has gone so far past a religious ceremony, you can't even bring religion into it... Its funny that you find the idea of gays raising a child so abhorrent when in your precious book your saviour orders innocent children to be killed for absolutely no bloody reason. I don't know about you but i'd rather grow up under the protection of gay parents than under the protection of god !! I respect your right to have your religion and I think you should respect everyones elses right not to hear about it. IMHO there can be no logical argument where religion is involved as some sort of justification for someones point of view.

If gays arn't 'born that way' yet do not 'choose to be that way' it just turned out that way then how can we say tough luck to them in having kids while we can allow a hetero who is unable to have kids (they weren't 'born that way' and didn't 'choose to be that way') or a single mother (not 'born that way' didn't choose to be that way) to use ivf ect. Katie... what is the 'queue' that the gays are supposedly jumping? Forgive me if I am wrong, but I thought that all of the ivf and test tube baby type science that can be applied to gays is being developed with all types in mind... ie... there is no specific science in making babies that can only be used by gays...

Obviously the first few single mothers didn't consider the ethical implications of raising a child alone, just like before the the first few couples that raised children outof wedlock didn't consider the implications of that just the same as the first few interracial marraiges didn't consider the effect it would have on thier kids...

If you think all gays are that irritating turd at the back of the class forever complaining in his overly flamboyant voice your experience with gay people obviously doesn't go past queer eye...

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by katie_tully
This topic pisses me off. Why? Here's why.
Marriage is a "union", yes children a "union" between "man" and "woman". Yes children, a man and a woman. Why does does the line go "I now pronounce you man and wife?". Second point. I'm not religious, nor am I homophobic but I cannot for the life of my understand why they want to get married. The bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin and gays are frowned upon, so explain to me why you want to be unionated in a religious ceremony in a house of god...when, ha ha, he doesn't like you?
And as for this children caper. It is not natural for a man and a man, a woman and a woman to PROCREATE. If it were natural, we'd be going forth and procreating with there nearest species of human. Obviously you havent considered the ethics of raising a child in a gay house hold. The taunts, the fact the kid is going to be an irritating turd at the back of the class forever complaining in his overly flamboyant voice. Think of the natural couples, the MEN and WOMEN who can't natural concieve. Don't you think it's selfish that "gays" are jumping the que in science to have children. It's not natural. For the rest of us, it is. You have no argument, so shut up.

may i suggest those that agree with this bill to tell her not to speak again. she is making you all look like fools

 

[lengstar]

no, on the contrary, i think she's making herself look the fool by bringing god into this discussion instead of logical reasons, except of course procreation.
how many times do i have to state that homosexuals have a biochemical balance which makes them more inclined to have sexual relations with the same sex, which ultimately means that they are born that way.

 

[Generator]

I still do not know how many people seem so open to the idea of gay marriage yet are so dismissive of another valid (in this case, religious) stance. One seems to see marriage as a civil institution and the other sees it as a religious institution. Both seem to be fair points of view to me.

 

[lengstar]

okay okay...when it really comes down to it i think that men should not have sexual relations with another man.
my stance on religion is that you shouldn't quote from the bible, but instead from your 'own' personal opinion otherwise its seems as if you hiding behind that book

 

[crazyhomo]

Originally posted by Generator
I still do not know how many people seem so open to the idea of gay marriage yet are so dismissive of another valid (in this case, religious) stance. One seems to see marriage as a civil institution and the other sees it as a religious institution. Both seem to be fair points of view to me.

i don't think he was implying that marriage can never have anything to do with religion, but obviously there are many people who think it can only ever have anything to do with religion (see katie). if this were indeed the case then only religious people would be able to marry, and obviously that just ain't so. therefore, saying that gays can't marry because the bible says so doesn't actually have any weight at all.

katie also claims that it is not natural for gays to procreate, yet it is IVF is legal, so why the double standard there? she then shows her complete ignorance by claiming that all children raised by gays will turn into stereotypes. and finally she contradicts herself by saying that gay couples (who cannot conceive naturally) should not 'queue jump' ahead of straight couples (who cannot conceive naturally)

really katie, although there are many people in this thread who i disagree with on this issue, at least they are able to back up there ideas without resorting to unlogical bs

 

[eviltama]

Marriage can be a civil or religious event. Get married infront of a priest or in front of a JoP it doesnt really matter unless you care about those things. And if you do care about your religion then well a nice stfu would apply here because we aren't arguing about whether homosexuality is right or wrong or sinful in relation to your religion.

The ban on gay marriage is a legal one. Based upon misconceived social perceptions (and a unhealthy does of Bush-ism) that homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed.

A survey was done by SBS i think, that showed that youth generally said 'let them marry if they want' in contrast to the older generation (50's +) who said 'Hell no!'. [Big generalisations but u get the drift]. Our society is at times perceived to be an aging one... its not. And our laws and our government should reflect the future of our country.. which is of course the youth of today. Which does baffle me why they keep putting us offside (Raising HECS, closing schools, lack of funding etc).
It seems silly to me, to be arguing (and ocassionally even debating) something that is so simply wrong. This has nothing to do with IVF for gay's or marriage being about procreation... this is simply about being given the same right that everyone else has. From the time you can understand wtf your parents are saying marriage comes into it 'Oh one day little johnny here will be rich and marry a pretty girl...' "Ashley will make a wonderful bride.. just like her sister". So what changes? Nothing. Well not unless at that oh so crucial time as we define our identity that you take the label (willingly or un-willingly) of 'homosexual'. The question is this, why should that make a difference to the eye of the law? A healthy part of society is homosexual, and hence that part should also have their needs met by the law. They should be protected by the government just like everyone else and be treated just like everyone else. It makes no sense to segregate them because of this label. That label could be anything else... but if its 'homosexual' then you're shoved into a corner and told that no-one wants to know about you're sickness. A sickness that only exists in the minds of homophobes. Is the law homophobic? If it is, then its not working properly and something needs to be done about it. Because one day maybe it won't only discriminate against gays, it may start making distinctions between hair colours, names, blood types, personalities.. who knows what will be next.

Now before y'all jump on your high horses and start bitching about what i said, this is my opinion agree with it or not but have the courtesy to respect it for being an Educated Opinion and not the load of bs some of you have been propagating.

 

[Generator]

...

If you want that view to be respected then stop telling those with a religious stance to 'stfu'.