Should gay marrige be allowed?

johnnyboyrebel

redped wrote: »

Sounds like an insult to me.

It's not an insult, its a kick up the !!!! that anyone with this mentality needs. I can't help but think that anyone who subscribes to a religion so intensively is missing something from their life.

essex1990

youropinioncounts wrote: »

Of course a man and woman who cannot have children could still get married, my opinion and many others is marrige is an institution between a man and woman.

so its yours and we can't have it. Didn't your parents teach you to share?

poet123

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

It's not an insult, its a kick up the !!!! that anyone with this mentality needs. I can't help but think that anyone who subscribes to a religion so intensively is missing something from their life.

An opinion which is your prerogative. However, the reverse applies, there are those who would say if you do not have a faith you are missing something from your life and they too are entitled to that opinion.

redped

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

It's not an insult, its a kick up the !!!! that anyone with this mentality needs. I can't help but think that anyone who subscribes to a religion so intensively is missing something from their life.

Sorry, but I can't see how describing someone as a "religious nut" is not an insult if that person happens to be religious. If someone was to use the phrase "homosexual nut" would you see that as an insult? I would. So how does that differ from "religious nut"?

youropinioncounts

johnnyboyrebel wrote: »

That was in response to your "oh so romantic" statement that marriage is about pro-creation.

Procreation is linked to a normal marrige hence why it was in the other post.

My main point is marrige is an act between a man and woman.

youropinioncounts

essex1990 wrote: »

so its yours and we can't have it. Didn't your parents teach you to share?

Not mine, but an option for a man and woman.

Same as civil partnerships are for same sex people.

essex1990

youropinioncounts wrote: »

Procreation is linked to a normal marrige hence why it was in the other post.

My main point is marrige is an act between a man and woman.

Yea but why? because you say it is? Parliament on the other hand who are elected by the people seem to have a very different opinion.

I think that the 13 year olds that are sleeping around and popping out kids before they are legally allowed to have sex, let alone get married would beg to differ about needing to be married to pro-create - what about people that take sperm/egg donations, what about old people or infertile people that want to get married - would you deny them that as well?

youropinioncounts

essex1990 wrote: »

Yea but why? because you say it is? Parliament on the other hand who are elected by the people seem to have a very different opinion.

I think that the 13 year olds that are sleeping around and popping out kids before they are legally allowed to have sex, let alone get married would beg to differ about needing to be married to pro-create - what about people that take sperm/egg donations, what about old people or infertile people that want to get married - would you deny them that as well?

As long as they are male and female it is fine.

I am not saying you need to be married to have kids but if you follow religion you would.

johnnyboyrebel

poet123 wrote: »

there are those who would say if you do not have a faith you are missing something from your life and they too are entitled to that opinion.

:rotfl: It gets better

johnnyboyrebel

redped wrote: »

Sorry, but I can't see how describing someone as a "religious nut" is not an insult if that person happens to be religious. If someone was to use the phrase "homosexual nut" would you see that as an insult? I would. So how does that differ from "religious nut"?

When the statements in question are utterly outdated and clearly wrong then "nut" is the operative word.