Should gay marrige be allowed?

stuart30

esuhl wrote: »

Have you really not noticed that heterosexual parents can have homosexual children? That's obviously how they came about! Just like in the rest of the animal kingdom.



It's been thirty years since you looked at a Bible?! Either you're a really bad Christian, in which case your input on the religion is going to be taken with a pinch of salt anyway, or you're not Christian in which case you're nuts if you're using a random book as justification for your prejudices.

Noticed i should do mate..both of my sister in laws were,then they changed their minds and got married,kids ect...no pressure from anyone..as they said "Its a choice i made".

My point in part is homosexuals will state that its perfectly normal,well then that means heterosexual is not normal...lol.

So you judge me as ive not been too church since Sunday school..who are you too sit in judgement..unless,oh crap,oh no..could it be.."dum dum dum"" GOD has risen and chosen Money saving expert too show himself.:rotfl:

I now prefer too worship the devil..money..drugs and phil collins.

Obviously your welcome too your views..;)

marleyboy

Of course Gay marriage should be allowed, I see no problem in this. However when it comes to a religious element, it would depend entirely on that religious view whether it would be allowed within a particular religion.

Failing this, if religion is to be forced to change to suit gay marriage, then this should not single one religion against another. Either ALL religions should be made to adapt, or neither. You cannot demand a Catholic church change its doctrines whilst leaving out Muslim or Jewish religions, else it will be seen as favouritism.

If there is a religion that has either adapted to allow such, or created to acceptance, it would seem wise for Gay couples to marry within that particular faith. I dont think we can force a particular religion to comply, not least without forcing ALL other religions to comply.

esuhl

stuart30 wrote: »

My point in part is homosexuals will state that its perfectly normal,well then that means heterosexual is not normal...lol.

Come on - use your brain! Not doing something "normal" does not make you "abnormal". If it is normal to walk down the street whilst wearing black shoes, that does not infer that it is abnormal to walk down the same street wearing brown shoes.

And what do you mean by normal, anyway? How do you define normality?

stuart30 wrote: »

So you judge me as ive not been too church since Sunday school..who are you too sit in judgement..unless,oh crap,oh no..could it be.."dum dum dum"" GOD has risen and chosen Money saving expert too show himself.:rotfl:

I think it's safe to say that someone who hasn't been to church or read the Bible for decades has little or no interest in Christianity. It would be hypocritical for someone with no interest in religion to use religion to defend their unjustifiable beliefs.

Anyway, if I can't judge you, how is it fair for you to judge me? How do you know that I'm not God himself, or Jesus Mark II, or whoever? If you can suspend belief for virgin births and resurrection, surely it's possible that I might be God...? I'm a little hurt that you aren't worshipping at my feet, my child. The least you could do would be to sing "All Things Bright and Beautiful".

Seriously, how did religion get into this debate in the first place? It was originally a discussion about whether gay marriage should be legalised. It doesn't really have anything to do with religion.

fluffnutter

stuart30 wrote: »

My point in part is homosexuals will state that its perfectly normal,well then that means heterosexual is not normal...lol.

Logic FAIL.

MamaMoo_2

stuart30 wrote: »

Noticed i should do mate..both of my sister in laws were,then they changed their minds and got married,kids ect...no pressure from anyone..as they said "Its a choice i made".

Your sisters-in-law were lesbians, who then chose to be straight, yes?
If this is true, one of three things has occurred.

1) they were not ever 'lesbian' to begin with. (see 'fauxmosexual')

2) they were bisexual, meaning whether they settled down with a man or a woman, they would still be acting honestly with regards to what 'felt right' for them

3) they are lesbians who have married and reproduced in order to conform to what was expected of them. They are still lesbians, and are denying their true feelings and living a lie for the benefit of others.

I'm sorry, but homosexuality isn't a choice.
I have a fair few LGBT friends, and I have asked a few of them at some point, what makes you deny women/men etc. I've always been met with the answer (or some variation of) "it feels wrong/uncomfortable/un-natural"

I e-mailed one of my gay male friends today, to get his perspective on this issue. He put it like this:

you know when you watch certain types of !!!!!!, and you get turned on? You kind of imagine that being you, and your body likes the thought of you doing that and you get aroused. Your skin tingles, you get goosebumps, your nipples get hard, your heart beats a bit faster, and you get really horny. And then you see other kinds of !!!!!! and think "nah mate, not for me". Well, for heterosexuals, they see straight !!!!!! (or maybe a bit of girl on girl for the guys, or guy on guy for the girls) and they get horny, then say a straight guy would see gay !!!!!! and think "nah, Fu*k that sh*t, mate." And it's au revoir hard on.
Well, for me, as a gay guy, I see straight !!!!!!, and I have a quick perv on the bloke, but mostly it bores me. It doesn't really arouse me. I see lesbian !!!!!!, and I'm thinking that it looks boring as he'll. I'm not even remotely turned on by two decent looking women in a bit of Agent Provocateur. You whack some gay !!!!!! on, and I'm gonna end up with repetitive strain injuries. My mind tells me what I like.
Then, putting it into practice, when I sleep with a guy it feels good. Pieces fit. I find them sexually appealing. I want to rip their clothes off.
With women, what little I tried, sex felt uncomfortable and un-natural. I wanted to be bent over, but if I was, there'd be a bit of a problem. I don't find the female form attractive. Not even chicks with dicks. I could make the conscious choice to bang a woman, but it would feel wrong.
I didn't choose to be gay, fu*k no, like I'm going to choose to make myself fancy blokes with all the stigma and bullish*t that comes along with it. If I could be with a woman like that, comfortably, then it'd be easier to do.
As it is, I can't. My brain tells me what I like, what arouses me, who I want to sleep with and be with in a long term relationship.
You're my bestest mate, I love you to bits, (and you're a bird!) but I couldn't be in a relationship with you because I don't love you like *that* I'm not IN love with you, and (no offence, like) but I'm not attracted to you (you have girly bits!)
I am in love with ***** though, and I can't help myself. Just like you can't help that you fell in love with ****.
So seriously, this isn't a life choice.
And if you think it is, missy, I'll kick your fat preggo !!!

Sure as hell better than I could have put it...

poet123

esuhl wrote: »

Isn't it illegal for private institutions to unjustly discriminate on certain grounds? It would (quite rightly) be illegal for me to set up a nightclub that had a "no gays" or "no blacks" policy, for example.

It would be illegal (quite rightly) but a) gay practise is a choice not an innate characteristic like gender or colour is and b) Religious organisations are exempt from the discrimination laws.

esuhl wrote: »

My sister doesn't "fit the criteria" for a church wedding (she's atheist), but she was able to get married. Actually, I think it would have been illegal for her to be in a civil partnership.

The church does NOT have a monopoly on marriage.

I have no objections to civil marriage. Nor do I believe the church has a monopoly on marriage, just on marriages which contain a religious element, which by extrapolation require adherence to certain rules.

poet123

jamespir wrote: »

your right there is no gay gene as such
but its down to chromosones that are split into y and x or male and female chromosones men have one y(male) and one x (female) women have xx chromosones where as they have found that some gay/effeminete men have xxy

jamespir wrote: »

http://www.phifoundation.org/sex.html look under gender issues mentions it there (ok bout transexuals but same thing )

That is not peer reviewed research and it doesn't support your contention.

There is no research which does that definitively. There are syndromes which show those chromosomal abnormalities but they are medical conditions, not an explanation for why someone is gay.

stuart30

esuhl wrote: »

Come on - use your brain! Not doing something "normal" does not make you "abnormal". If it is normal to walk down the street whilst wearing black shoes, that does not infer that it is abnormal to walk down the same street wearing brown shoes.

And what do you mean by normal, anyway? How do you define normality?



I think it's safe to say that someone who hasn't been to church or read the Bible for decades has little or no interest in Christianity. It would be hypocritical for someone with no interest in religion to use religion to defend their unjustifiable beliefs.

Anyway, if I can't judge you, how is it fair for you to judge me? How do you know that I'm not God himself, or Jesus Mark II, or whoever? If you can suspend belief for virgin births and resurrection, surely it's possible that I might be God...? I'm a little hurt that you aren't worshipping at my feet, my child. The least you could do would be to sing "All Things Bright and Beautiful".

Seriously, how did religion get into this debate in the first place? It was originally a discussion about whether gay marriage should be legalised. It doesn't really have anything to do with religion.

Jesus..ok here's what really happened..Mary got knocked up by someone other than Joesph..knowing the shame of this,she lied (not the first and wont be the last) and let poor old Joesph think it was the "immaculate conception"...no one believed her so no one would let her cheating !!! have a baby in there home...Jesus pops out and with all the mixed up lies and part truths he grows up with a split personality,thinks he"s the son of god and gets the !!!! taken out of him.
Throws his toys out of the pram and a big arsed Roman gets offended and bangs him onto the cross.

2000 yrs explained in a few sentences..who needs thee bible.:D

We have not felt the need for homosexual marriage in the last few thousand years why do we need too start now..whats next,marry your horse (think the Americans are already half way there)..marry your family member...no you shout that's preposterous,well that's how some people feel about homosexual marriage.

Obviously this makes me a homophobe as i dont agree with it...just like i dont like hot chocolate so im a choclatefobe..:eek::D

MamaMoo_2

stuart30 wrote: »

Jesus..ok here's what really happened..Mary got knocked up by someone other than Joesph..knowing the shame of this,she lied (not the first and wont be the last) and let poor old Joesph think it was the "immaculate conception"...no one believed her so no one would let her cheating !!! have a baby in there home...Jesus pops out and with all the mixed up lies and part truths he grows up with a split personality,thinks he"s the son of god and gets the !!!! taken out of him.
Throws his toys out of the pram and a big arsed Roman gets offended and bangs him onto the cross.

2000 yrs explained in a few sentences..who needs thee bible.:D

We have not felt the need for homosexual marriage in the last few thousand years why do we need too start now..whats next,marry your horse (think the Americans are already half way there)..marry your family member...no you shout that's preposterous,well that's how some people feel about homosexual marriage.

Obviously this makes me a homophobe as i dont agree with it...just like i dont like hot chocolate so im a choclatefobe..:eek::D

Seriously? You're comparing homosexuality to incest and zoophilia? The main difference is that unlike homosexuality, both incest and zoophilia are ILLEGAL.

Also, for a fair while we didn't feel the need to treat black people like human beings, but enslaved them and treated them like sh*t. Times change, and people want (and deserve) equal rights.

esuhl

stuart30 wrote: »

We have not felt the need for homosexual marriage in the last few thousand years why do we need too start now.

Seriously? You actually believe that no gay person who's ever existed in the past 2000 years has wanted to get married?! Plenty of gay people have lived together over the years despite other people's obnoxious prejudice and the fact that in many cases they were breaking the law (or in danger of being suspected of breaking the law).

If "we" (who the hell are you to speak for a whole legislative region?) really have not ever felt the need to legalise gay marriage, then why are we even discussing it and why are the vast majority of people who have voted on the poll in favour of it? It sounds like you're a bit out of touch, here.

stuart30 wrote: »

Obviously this makes me a homophobe as i dont agree with it...just like i dont like hot chocolate so im a choclatefobe..:eek::D

That doesn't make sense. Why do you want to prevent me from drinking hot chocolate because you don't like it? What gives you the right to dictate my preferences? If that's really what you believe, then it's bigotry, plain and simple; you ought to be ashamed of yourself.