shakey_31279 is offline shakey_31279 Post #1  June 1,2009, 12:10am
shakey_31279's Avatar

the dark man in the light..

Newbie

Joined: May 2009

Melbourne, Australia

Posts: 12

See profile

opinions welcome,,,,this is huge right now...what do you think?
 
  Reply With Quote
Blackadder is offline Blackadder Post #2  June 12,2009, 11:37pm
Blackadder's Avatar

has cheezburgerz.

Quick Study

Joined: May 2009

Oregon

Posts: 135

See profile

Why not? Aside from any religious point of view.

Here's a certain perspective:

You're not married but you've been living with your partner for 25 to 30 years. Whether or not you're same sex in this senario doesn't matter, but there is a point. You've been together for all those years and something happens, be it an accident or merely failing health. Your partner is rushed to the emergency room and placed in the intensive care unit. In most hospitals they will only allow immediate family in. What are you to do, since you're not related. A decision needs to be made regarding your partner's health care but you're not allowed to make it. You can't even visit or be with your partner during what might possibly be their final moments. How do you feel about that?

Legal spouses have the ability to make those desicions and be there when they are needed. A lot of same sex couples aren't looking for tax breaks or to rile up the religious ciommunity. They want basic rights to live and be with those they love and be able to care for them and make those decisions when needed. Does it affect me whether a man marries a man or woman marries a woman? Not any more than when a man marries a woman. Really, not at all. Would it raise my taxes? I don't even know where my taxes go anyway. Probably to more things I would disagree with more than same sex marriages, so who cares?

Common law marriages are a whole other topic.
 
  Reply With Quote
ctrosztmer is offline ctrosztmer Post #3  July 15,2009, 8:22am
ctrosztmer's Avatar

Newbie

Joined: Jul 2009

Posts: 1

See profile

Yes, same sex marriages are a good idea.
Legally marriage is a two edged sword. Many people think there are financial savings involved, and yes there are some, but for many it represents financial expenses as both parties’ incomes affect each other.
Just what is marriage? That is the question that really needs to be addressed. In most of Canada you are going to be married common law by living under the same roof together for a certain period of time. People often find this out the hard way, and if anything tells you marriage is a bad tax move, this should. Québec is a notable exception to this, where there is no such thing as common law marriage. If you look at it from a business perspective, marriage is the joining of two people’s holdings and their families; a perspective taken in many arranged marriages. Then there’s the perspective of love, when two people love with each other, they want to make a commitment to each other that is recognized by the world so they can act as one and make decisions for each other. When you look at the religious reasons for marriage, it is supposed to be like this one, the joining of the two, to make one. So if you reduce it, regardless of the perspective, marriage can be looked at much like a merger, making two parties into one.
Why not allow two adults who are willing to be saddled with each other to get married? It may allow them to make decisions for each other that they would otherwise need a power of attorney or living will to make and still makes them vulnerable to tax losses they might not otherwise be exposed to. This actually benefits society. It does allow things like spousal benefits to work, benefits that are being paid for that would otherwise never be made use of; also benefitting society so far as there are fewer people falling through the cracks. There will be more people supporting each other emotionally and financially, also a good thing. It levels the playing field.
Forget the emotion in the question. Look at the mechanics of it and make a rational decision based on reason.
 
  Reply With Quote
DAATHA2009 is offline DAATHA2009 Post #4  July 17,2009, 2:21am
DAATHA2009's Avatar

Joined: Jul 2009

Southern California

Posts: 1

See profile

NO...gay marriage should NOT be legalized...and please leave the "gay agendized" misnomer of "homophobe" off the table because the meaning of the term as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality itself, arguing that the term may be used as an ad hominem argument against those who advocate values or positions of which the speaker does not approve. Technically, however, the term actually denotes a person who has a phobia — or irrational fear — of homosexuality. Principled disagreement or disapproval, therefore, cannot be labeled 'homophobia’…so don’t even try to go there! Anyways, lets examine the reasons against gay marriage:
Homosexuality Is A Danger to Children
- In 2004, the AmericanCollege of Pediatricians stated the following regarding homosexuality and parenting: Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation."
- The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.
- Despite the high profile portrayal of homosexuality in the media, successes within/by Government legislation, private corporations and even in mainstream churches, the homosexual activists primary aim remains elementary school children and youths confused about their sexuality.
- This is assured by the greater (50%) statistical acceptance of homosexuality amongst adolescents compared with less than 15% of people in their 60s. If gay liberation is to be embraced how soon shall pederasty be reinstated and thus pedophilia normalized?
Homosexuality Is Essentially Immoral:
- As Christianity burst out of the Middle Eastern World at the beginning of the common era (CE) deviant sexual practices, pederasty and same-sex relationships, common in the then known Greco-Roman world gradually disappeared from public practice, observation and/ or acceptance.
- However, over the last 30 or 40 years, a new homosexual movement, has come out of the closet, to pursue an agenda leading the community to again accept the pagan practices which Judeo-Christian philosophy and ethic largely suppressed.
- All the old vices and promiscuities are again being promoted throughout society and paraded as human rights or diversities that should be politically protected.
- In little more than a generation, flowing from the sexual revolution (or rather convolution) of the 60s, the moral fiber and growth of Western Civilization, tamed over centuries by the Christian Gospel, is relapsing back into its pagan hedonistic roots. Homosexuality, in parallel, is also receiving societal acceptance; either by common persuasion, under the duress of political correctness or regarded, by law, as an alternative lifestyle.
The Gay Agenda Seeks To Undermine America's Morality
- Homosexual activists have, it would seem, been remarkably successful in re-defining marriage and family. But what do they really want? Having achieved civil unions, domestic partnerships and ultimately same-sex marriage, homosexual activists attempt to assure us they should not necessarily pose any threat to marriage or family stability. Yet the introduction of these alternative (counterfeit) unions cannot help but impose a perverse moral standard upon us all.
- To homosexual-rights activists, conversion is a planned psychological attack spread through the media. The strategy involves wearing society down to the point where just accepting homosexuality is much less of a burden than continuing to "fight the fight" for the good of American values.
Gay Marriage Rights Are A Sham
- If love and companionship were sufficient to define marriage, then there would be no reason to deny marriage to unions of a child and an adult, or an adult child and his or her aging parent, or to roommates who have no sexual relationship, or to groups rather than couples. Love and companionship are usually considered integral to marriage in our culture, but they are not sufficient to define it as an institution.
- To approve of "gay marriage" is to "validate" homosexual sex practices and create the false impression that these practices are normal. Yet by virtue of the acts themselves they are perverse by moral standards, aberrant by societal standards and an abomination by religious standards. Attaching all the connotations associated with traditional heterosexual marriages does not change the realities of the homosexual lifestyle.
Bottom Line:
- The gay lobby doesn't have a "right" to suddenly change society's definition of the word "marriage". Marriage equals a union between a man and a woman as of now. That reflects a current SOCIETAL consensus, not any force by any political/religious parties whatsoever. As far as marriage being a "natural" right, marriage does not exist anywhere else in the animal kingdom because it resides only in the domain of man as a manmade institution, thus subject to the laws and morality of society. Also, the statement that gay couples and same-sex marriages have a "natural right" to the acceptance of everyone else in society necessarily implies that the others in that society do not have the right to withhold their approval.
 
  Reply With Quote
Poppa_Noir is offline Poppa_Noir Post #5  July 17,2009, 11:18pm
Poppa_Noir's Avatar

Joined: Jul 2009

Posts: 1

See profile

DAATHA2009 wrote :
NO...gay marriage should NOT be legalized...and please leave the "gay agendized" misnomer of "homophobe" off the table because the meaning of the term as it is usually used, makes an illegitimately pejorative evaluation of certain open and debatable value positions, much like the former disease construct of homosexuality itself, arguing that the term may be used as an ad hominem argument against those who advocate values or positions of which the speaker does not approve. Technically, however, the term actually denotes a person who has a phobia — or irrational fear — of homosexuality. Principled disagreement or disapproval, therefore, cannot be labeled 'homophobia’…so don’t even try to go there! Anyways, lets examine the reasons against gay marriage:fficeffice" />>>
Homosexuality Is A Danger to Children>>
- In 2004, the ffice:smarttags" />lace>AmericanCollegelace> of Pediatricians stated the following regarding homosexuality and parenting: Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation." >>
Does that make it wrong? Children experiment by nature, and I'd like to see the studies. What was the control group? Who determined the stats? How was it controlled? I suspect bias and BS.

wrote :
- The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science.>>
Not really. Even the ACP acknowledges that information is sparse in these cases for long term. Secondly, the ACP promotes abstinance education. A position that has been scientifically PROVEN not to work! Yeah, no bias here. Just simple science. Uh-huh.

Abstinence-Only Sex Education Statistics - Final Nail in the Coffin — Open Education

Abstinence only is just stupid.

wrote :
- Despite the high profile portrayal of homosexuality in the media, successes within/by Government legislation, private corporations and even in mainstream churches, the homosexual activists primary aim remains elementary school children and youths confused about their sexuality.>>
So the message is all gay people are ALSO pedophiles? Right. Because "normal" people don't experiment as children? Too funny. Who writes your stuff? Oh, NVM. It's brainless claptrap copy and pasted from fundy sites.

Pray, continue your legacy of misinformation and hate mongering.

wrote :
- This is assured by the greater (50%) statistical acceptance of homosexuality amongst adolescents compared with less than 15% of people in their 60s. If gay liberation is to be embraced how soon shall pederasty be reinstated and thus pedophilia normalized?>>
Slippery Slope Logical Fallacy. Look it up. I'm sure you have no idea what it actually is...

wrote :
Homosexuality Is Essentially Immoral: >>
wrote :
- As Christianity burst out of the Middle Eastern World at the beginning of the common era (CE) deviant sexual practices, pederasty and same-sex relationships, common in the then known Greco-Roman world gradually disappeared from public practice, observation and/ or acceptance. >>
Unfortunately for the rest of the world, so did all imagination, sciencetific exploration, and any potential human growth. "There was a time when religion ruled the world. We call it, The Dark Ages." ~Author Unknown to me.

wrote :
- However, over the last 30 or 40 years, a new homosexual movement, has come out of the closet, to pursue an agenda leading the community to again accept the pagan practices which Judeo-Christian philosophy and ethic largely suppressed. >>
wrote :
- All the old vices and promiscuities are again being promoted throughout society and paraded as human rights or diversities that should be politically protected. >>
Yes. God forbid we have religious freedom in the USA! Why..the forefathers would never stand for it. Wait a minute...

wrote :
- In little more than a generation, flowing from the sexual revolution (or rather convolution) of the 60s, the moral fiber and growth of Western Civilization, tamed over centuries by the Christian Gospel, is relapsing back into its pagan hedonistic roots. Homosexuality, in parallel, is also receiving societal acceptance; either by common persuasion, under the duress of political correctness or regarded, by law, as an alternative lifestyle. >>
Rhetoric and crap.

wrote :
The Gay Agenda Seeks To Undermine
wrote :
lace>Americalace>'s Morality>>
- Homosexual activists have, it would seem, been remarkably successful in re-defining marriage and family. But what do they really want? Having achieved civil unions, domestic partnerships and ultimately same-sex marriage, homosexual activists attempt to assure us they should not necessarily pose any threat to marriage or family stability. Yet the introduction of these alternative (counterfeit) unions cannot help but impose a perverse moral standard upon us all. >>
Just because you can't think for yourself and have to rely on the religion of your father, and HIS father's interpretation, doesn't mean the rest of us are gullible lemmings. Go bother someone else with this nickel plated pablum. It's shabby and not even a good cut and paste job. Do you think adding smilies abrogates the need for self expression? Well, it probably does for your part.

wrote :
- To homosexual-rights activists, conversion is a planned psychological attack spread through the media. The strategy involves wearing society down to the point where just accepting homosexuality is much less of a burden than continuing to "fight the fight" for the good of American values.>>
Uhm... Right. Because Truman Capote and Paul Lynn have been SUCH a threat to the US.

wrote :
Gay Marriage Rights Are A Sham>>
wrote :
- If love and companionship were sufficient to define marriage, then there would be no reason to deny marriage to unions of a child and an adult, or an adult child and his or her aging parent, or to roommates who have no sexual relationship, or to groups rather than couples. Love and companionship are usually considered integral to marriage in our culture, but they are not sufficient to define it as an institution.>>
Bull****! Consent laws ring a bell? This is such absolute bat sh*t argumentation, that it almost doesn't deserve a reply. However, I can't let the ignorance level crest that high. So... Sigh.

Marriage was originally NOT a church sanctioned event. Get off your damn high horse. It was a SECULAR event, brought about to assure rights of inheritance and later adopted and blessed by the church.

Marriage is nothing more than a social contract, with the church waving an "approval" stick over it.

wrote :
- To approve of "gay marriage" is to "validate" homosexual sex practices and create the false impression that these practices are normal.
Depending on the stats you want to use, they are very normal for 4-10% of the population. Not to mention a percentage of animals around the world.

Face it, it's normal. Maybe not something you like, but then, I hate spinach... Go figure. The difference is, I'm not on here bitching about spinach or how immoral it is for Popeye to get off on it...

wrote :
Yet by virtue of the acts themselves they are perverse by moral standards, aberrant by societal standards and an abomination by religious standards. Attaching all the connotations associated with traditional heterosexual marriages does not change the realities of the homosexual lifestyle. >>
Yeah, we don't want to love the sinner and hate the sin, now do we? That would be a little tto Christ-like. Can't have that. Might lead to some serious thinking about who is right. The baptists, catholics, methodists, 7th day adventists, mormons, or the Branch Davidians...

wrote :
Bottom Line:>>
wrote :
- The gay lobby doesn't have a "right" to suddenly change society's definition of the word "marriage".


It's a free society. If they can get the votes, they can damn well do what they want.

wrote :
Marriage equals a union between a man and a woman as of now. That reflects a current SOCIETAL consensus, not any force by any political/religious parties whatsoever
Right. Currently. That will change in time. Wait for it.

wrote :
As far as marriage being a "natural" right, marriage does not exist anywhere else in the animal kingdom because it resides only in the domain of man as a manmade institution, thus subject to the laws and morality of society. Also, the statement that gay couples and same-sex marriages have a "natural right" to the acceptance of everyone else in society necessarily implies that the others in that society do not have the right to withhold their approval.>>
Withhold your approval. Who cares? Stop keeping people from sharing their lives with who they wish. Stop them from getting medical insurance and the right to decide about medical treatment for the people they care about.

WWJD? Srsly...
 
  Reply With Quote
danekt32 is offline danekt32 Post #6  March 13,2011, 5:29pm
danekt32's Avatar

Newbie

Joined: Mar 2011

Posts: 2

See profile

Should same sex marriages be legalized? No.
My first objection is to the word "marriage". This term clearly comes from the religious backgrounds many are familiar with, and while it may mean less and less to some these days, one shouldn't utilize that term decribing relationships that go against what most religious teachings(homosexuality)consider proper. So, then consider the term 'civil unions'. My objection here is that if you now confer 'marriage-like' legal benefits on partners(male/male, female/female, even male/female) what's to stop the legal confusion when these relationships end? Divorce rates are high enough and messy enough, how do you cope with the status of people who feel they are entitled to certain rights due to the fact that they were in some quasi-legal relationship for some certain time period? I respect everyone and in no way am I passing judgement on what's "right" but this is an idea that only sounds good on paper, not reality.
Last edited by danekt32; March 13,2011 at 5:34pm. Reason: spelling
 
  Reply With Quote
D_Lion is offline D_Lion Post #7  March 14,2011, 4:42pm
D_Lion's Avatar

- Ladies want to wring my neck - you have been warned!

Sage

Joined: Aug 2008

Posts: 31,698

See profile

I am in favor of persons having a right to accept such burdens as they explicitly agree to, as regards their private conduct.

So, the same-sex partner should have the full gamut of rights ...

... but only those they have agreed to, not some that descend from an obsolete, theology-based concept of "marriage."
 
  Reply With Quote
tink333 is offline tink333 — Advice Member-Moderator Post #8  March 15,2011, 9:09pm
tink333's Avatar

up late....again.

Volunteer Community Leader

Joined: Jan 2009

Indianapolis

Posts: 1,258

See profile

I am not in favor of legalizing same sex marriages.

If a same sex couple desire to take on responsibilties for each other, there are legal instruments which accomplish this that do not require they be married:
  • *They can issue powers of attorney to give each other powers if they cannot decide or act for themselves,
  • * they can write their wills so that they each receive all or a portion of their partner's estate,
  • *they can write their advance directives (living wills) to give each other permission to decide and act in the event there is a medical situation that arises
Last edited by tink333; March 15,2011 at 9:10pm. Reason: darn it. the bullet list thing is not working right.....
 
  Reply With Quote
Diann1950 is online now Diann1950 Post #9  March 16,2011, 11:26am
Diann1950's Avatar

Kid and dog sitting, have grand kids and dogs for the week.

Enthusiast

Joined: May 2009

Wichita Ks

Posts: 891

See profile

First as a Catholic there are two types of marriage, one is sacramental and the other is civil. Many people are not allowed to celebrate a sacramental marriage in the church but still are married in a civil ceremony. I see no reason for civil marriage to be limited, what pray tell, could two men or two women do to the state of marriage that hasn't already been done by men and women? As to the "sinfulness" issue, I will leave that up to a loving and benevolent God.
 
  Reply With Quote
Jeff237 is offline Jeff237 Post #10  March 17,2011, 12:41pm
Jeff237's Avatar

Newbie

Joined: Mar 2011

Posts: 5

See profile

Sure, whey not? Don't gay people have a right to be miserable as the rest of us?
 
  Reply With Quote
Reply


« sports,from the Olympics to Football,baseball,etc | Debate Society | Would You Accept a Levy? »
Topic Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new topics
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

Similar Topics
Topic Topic Starter Board Replies Last Post
The Today Show's Janice Lieberman Tells You What the Experts Know About Happy Marriages BILLGOLF Dating 9 June 25,2009 9:13pm

Looking for a Great Relationship?

Get started now. Fill out this form and take the questionnaire to receive your matches.

First Name:

I'm a:
seeking

Postal Code:

Country:

Email:

Confirm Email:

Password:


How did you hear about us?


Latest on our Dating Advice Discussion Boards

“ Excellent, thank you. I think I will leave out the first part, I think it is unnecessary information to give him. I'm not interested in putting myself out there like that and it might be a little ... ” –  generallyyou

Join the “Ending a friendship” discussion

“Alfred Hitchcock - 18 Steven Spielberg - 62 *notice what?” –  dmi

Join the “War of the Directors” discussion

“ I would be "certain people" :P The issue isn't a deal-breaker, but a very strong factor preference-wise, for me.” –  ThePriestess

Join the “How much does race play in your dating someone?” discussion

“Love Texas Hold'em!.. I'm thinking of trying another tournament this summer...not sure yet though.. Never entered a tournament before, outside of online ones. Personally I prefer to play with ... ” –  Freezepop

Join the “Favorite Card Game” discussion

“Make that 3! I also had a crush on Donny Osmond. I think I still have a record or two of his. Suzie ” –  legend29

Join the “Robin Gibbs Dead at 62...How Deep is Your Love?” discussion

“Oh, my revised profile can be seen in the forum in the section where you can ask for a profile review. Suzanne” –  SuzanneScorpio

Join the “Photo Review” discussion

“Just remember, everything that you are feeling and/or are capable of he is as well. If he wanted to reach you, he could. Right now he knows that you are hurting, and that this is not what you ... ” –  lynntlb78

Join the “Can I wait and move on at the same time?” discussion

“ Yohio. And the shortened form (Anya) is nice too.” –  ThePriestess

Join the “Where is Becky?!?” discussion



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 7:54am.

Discussion Boards Archive

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0