Marriage
- Thread starter djjaycool
- Start date
I see no reason why Gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. Also, all the 'it's against our religion' talk is just Bible/Koran/etc speak for 'I'm a bigot'.
It's the same deal with female priests.
Personally I'd just outlaw all religion, especially when it has a level of control over politics. I don't care what your make believe leader thinks.
It's the same deal with female priests.
Personally I'd just outlaw all religion, especially when it has a level of control over politics. I don't care what your make believe leader thinks.
Last edited by a moderator:
gorilla_ie
New Member
Colonel Kurtz
New Member
I agree , if two people love each other then thats all that matters.
purple_lean
New Member
I feel that marriage is defined as a union between a Man and a Woman. It has been that way since the beginning of recorded history, to consummate a breeding pair and to have children within a house to promote responsibility for and the welfare of those children in the community. I don't think it's about religion like a lot of people claim. People have been getting married way before the birth of Christ or Muhammad or whoever you may praise, it just happens to be an endorsed practice.
I just don't see how we justify changing the definition of probably the oldest custom in the history of man across all cultures.
I don't have a problem with homosexuals. My suggestion would be that there should be some sort of new legal classification, like the term they use "life partner" that gets similar legal recognition as marriage.
I know we live in progressive times and to me that means creating new, not necessarily modifying the old. I think they can co-exist, but are not the exact same thing.
This is solely my opinion, please refrain from the flames. Thanks.
I just don't see how we justify changing the definition of probably the oldest custom in the history of man across all cultures.
I don't have a problem with homosexuals. My suggestion would be that there should be some sort of new legal classification, like the term they use "life partner" that gets similar legal recognition as marriage.
I know we live in progressive times and to me that means creating new, not necessarily modifying the old. I think they can co-exist, but are not the exact same thing.
This is solely my opinion, please refrain from the flames. Thanks.
Morbyd
Moderator
In the modern world, marriage is a legal contract that bestows upon people certain rights and responsibilities.
If it weren't for that, there'd be no reason to do it. People would just live together... as they did in these ancient times you speak about. Back then, there were no tax considerations, inheritances, or hospital visitation rights to speak about.
To say that marriage is the same now as it was a couple of thousand years ago is misinformed. It has evolved as a practice. It has changed considerably. Remember - there were times when people of different races weren't allowed to marry in some parts of the world. That's changed now too.
Evolution is a good thing. Time to evolve further.
If it weren't for that, there'd be no reason to do it. People would just live together... as they did in these ancient times you speak about. Back then, there were no tax considerations, inheritances, or hospital visitation rights to speak about.
To say that marriage is the same now as it was a couple of thousand years ago is misinformed. It has evolved as a practice. It has changed considerably. Remember - there were times when people of different races weren't allowed to marry in some parts of the world. That's changed now too.
Evolution is a good thing. Time to evolve further.
agentundercover
Active Member
There you go djcool - I assume this was what you were looking for? get stuck into the non liberal fire brand!
As the above & morbs touch on, separate it from religion and other pixie like belief and it's about pragmatism, societal statements and other such things for clevererer people to discuss in abstract terms & if it's pragmatic for them & a gayer wants to spend 13grand on a wedding & honeymoon that could EASILY have been spent on say...a house in a different part of Manchester.... then good for them!
the 'we've been doing it for years without them' argument really does not hold up tho.
The point was well spoken on why to ban same sex marriage. I don't agree, I think human rights should be given to all.
Iwearmysunglasses@night
New Member
People should move on from the stone ages and look beyond the biblical nonsense because let's face it, that's where all the discussion is coming from. If you can marry your dog nowadays, why not someone of the same sex. It all comes down to politicans being afraid of losing votes of the christian/ other religious community.
Well, you cannot really play the bible card and just say that everything goes. There are people who propably think that A is bad, B and C should do X and Y is good only if K is ovet 16 years or over, all this without the presense of bible. Of course people can claim that for example that ban of same sex marriage is only a religious thing or saying that being gay is not ok is a religious thing but is doens't necessarely do it so. There might also be people who thing what they think without religious agenda etc. and their opinions should also be valued as much as all of those wuss-liberals. It's quite interesting actually. If one has an opinion that homosexuality is not the most desired state ever, he's either a religious fanatic or a homophobic (and that means either closet gay or gay without realising it). I find it quite discusting that people are not allowed to have opinions about things without being labeled for being a terrible person for saying that maybe people shouldn't do this or that. Being critical about gays doesn't necessarely mean that they are rooting for gay bashings. But same applies to black people. No one who wants to get social poins, cannot say that they don't like or want black people on their neightbourhoor or having foreign people coming to their workplaces or marring their daughters or sons. And if some one says that, he's automatically evil and disgusting person for just saying what he things. And other religions too, and other customs etc. We all live in a wuss-liberal world where everything has to go because it doesn't hurt anyones feelings.
Would you value somebodies opinion if they stated that black people shouldn't be able to marry? Because it's the same thing. At least from a religious point of view there is a little more substance to their view than straight bigotry.
If you just don't want them to get married, you are a homophobe. Fact. Which is no better than racism or sexism. Prejudice against someone because of something they can't help is disgusting. Call me a wuss-liberal if you like, but it's better then being a brain dead moron.
You can be racist without stringing funny folk up, you know. If you hold negative views toward someone on the basis of their sexuality then you ARE a homophobe.
Last edited by a moderator:
No, you are a wuss-liberal. If someone says that black people shouldn't get married, he has the right to have his opinion without calling him names or whatever, like a biggot. It's a political point of view and he has that right according to all western values and laws. But wuss-liberals say, that people have only one allowed way of thinking, that is the wuss-liberal way. It's like nazi-germany, exept opposite universe where everyhing goes and all that is opposing that, is bad, evil and no one can make their own mind what feels right or wrong. There's only one way.
If someone says that gay people should get married, doesn't make them a homophobe, nor does the fact that they don't like or aprove gays. It's not necessacily mean that they fear or that they are or anything like that.
Byt even prejudism is something that every people has a right, people have the right to have an opinion about things and some liberal factions say, that wait, no you cannot because we the liberal people have decided, that all but the extreme liberal is prejudism, intolerrance or what ever they decide. Extreme libel, etc wuss-liberal people are extreme intollerant what comes to other people's opinions if they are against their own values or opinions. Not liking gays doesn't mean that some one is a homophobe any less than person who doesn't like spiders would be a aracnophobe.
Wow, just wow. Now people who don't like bigots are Nazi's.
If you don't think Black people should be allowed to get married, you are a racist, I really don't see how you can possibly think otherwise. Being a political matter doesn't make a jot of difference.
And I agree, people are full entitled to hold what ever beliefs they like, no matter how backwards those beliefs are. But, I am also fully entitled to mine, so if somebody says something bigoted, I'm going to go right ahead and tell them that.
It's quite interesting actually. It's not allowed to say anything critical about foreign people, foreign workforce or people of other races or you are a RACIST. When one is labeled RACIST, they can completely pushed aside from the political playground, no matter how logical or sound their arguments are or are not. Same applies with this homo stuff that if it's critical, its HOMOPHOBE, and therefore is pushed aside automatically. This also applies to many subjects, at least in finland, that I and other people might find more or less important. You cannot touch is critically because then you a labeled BAD PERSON and <then nudge away>, therefore resticting political and social conversation. The danger here is, that if a certain group feels or finds out that they cannot have their say in a POLITICAL matter, they can or eventually will slip to more extreme points of view.
What comes to someone "trying to insight violence etc towards groups", that's illegal so there's no problem here, is there?
What comes to someone "trying to insight violence etc towards groups", that's illegal so there's no problem here, is there?
But in a democracy yes you can have whatever views you like but the fact is you need supporter's and to be voted in and the majority of the UK do not support these views.
Dont get me wrong I do agree with the "political correctness gone mad" stuff where there is all sorts of red tape and regulations about stuff especially in schools which seems to go against common sense.
People like the BNP are allowed to stand in the same elections as everyone else , the fact is they have alot less support and MOST people don't like their policies
Dont get me wrong I do agree with the "political correctness gone mad" stuff where there is all sorts of red tape and regulations about stuff especially in schools which seems to go against common sense.
People like the BNP are allowed to stand in the same elections as everyone else , the fact is they have alot less support and MOST people don't like their policies