Log in

View Full Version : Same sex marriages...


Nosferatu
June 15th, 2009, 10:51 PM
Pro's and con's of it. Marriage of course can never be changed from man and woman to same sex. I do believe however, that committment to one another of the same sex is important, I believe it would cut down considerably the number of sexually transmitted diseases to a minimum if those who would commit would do so under law. I do think gay civil unions should be universally allowed, and I for one would perform them. I think the reason gays have so many sex partners is because they feel there is no chance for committment in todays society...so why not allow it?

rmw
June 16th, 2009, 01:10 AM
I think we need a better distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage. This has been discussed here before (but I'm too lazy to search for the thread right now), but essentially the states need to recognize the fact that when a couple marries, it is a legal contract between the state and said couple. In a religious ceremony, it's just that: a ceremony. Now, some may call it a contract between the couple and god, but it's not legally binding. I think that states need to better recognize the separation of church and state, and perform civil marriages/unions for consenting adults, regardless of gender, and religions should have no say in it. However, if a church doesn't want to marry a gay couple because of religious condemnation of homosexuality, that is their right and the state should have no say in it. jmo

Yiuel
June 16th, 2009, 01:36 PM
Marriage of course can never be changed from man and woman to same sex.

It can. Legally, in Canada, the definition of a marriage is the Federal government's privilege. Various institutions within Canada might disagree with its definition, but that is disagreement, not the legal definition within Canada. From there, the legal definition of a marriage can easily be redefined by the State. In Canada, it is now the union of two people, no matter what else. (In Quebec, you even can be total foreigners.)

This might not be the case elsewhere but, as far as I know, it is in a lot of countries.

I do believe however, that committment to one another of the same sex is important, I believe it would cut down considerably the number of sexually transmitted diseases to a minimum if those who would commit would do so under law.

Marriage does not limit the transmission of disease. If it was the case, Quebec would be a hotbed of sexually transmissible disease (for it has a high rate of unmarried couples, even with children). What helps more is sexual education and sexual protection. However, recognizing sam-sex couples by the state gives them some legal legitimity. In Canada, that means they are entitled to all rights a married couple have, including child adoption and mutual support. This legitimity in turn gives people some safety and insurrance, especially if one of the two spouses die or becomes disabled somehow.

I do think gay civil unions should be universally allowed, and I for one would perform them.

I do not disagree with that.

I think the reason gays have so many sex partners is because they feel there is no chance for committment in todays society...so why not allow it?

Do same-sex partners really have that many partners if compared to other-sex partners? I would like to see statistics. My own region's statistics are flawed to give any reason to your statement, as we have had civil unions for same-sex partners for over a decade here, enough time for people to adjust (and now we even have marriage).

However, thoses statistics do show that heterosexuals and homosexuals have mostly the same sexual habits in term of commitment.

tagnostic
June 16th, 2009, 01:40 PM
all monogomous relationships
are same sex
unless your really creative

Sister Faith
June 16th, 2009, 11:53 PM
I really can't understand why anyone would want to 'get married'.

As an atheist and a feminist, a misogynist religion based church ceremony to have a non-existent 'God' recognize my union holds no appeal for me.

As an anti-authoritarian, separation of self & state advocate, civil unions hold no appeal for me either and this is why (http://docs.google.com/View?docID=dhpmkpm4_33fxnhj2c7&revision=_latest).

Some quotes:

In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit
venture or profit-making venture (even though it may never actually
produce a profit in operation) and as the wife goes out to the
local market to purchase food stuffs and other supplies for the
marriage household, she is replenishing the stocks of the business.
To restate: In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a
business venture, that is, a for-profit business venture. Moreover,
as children come into the marriage household, the business venture
is considered to have "borne fruit."If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a "divorce" results
the contract continues in existence. The "divorce" is merely a
contractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and conditions
of the contract. Jurisdiction of the State over the marriage,
over the husband and wife, now separated, continues and continues
over all aspects of the marriage, over marital property and over
children brought into the marriage.
Basically, I believe that neither the church nor the state should have any business in citizens bedrooms or relationships.
A commitment (and any 'contracts') should be made between the only parties involved in the relationship - the couple.

Besides, a promise to commit that is kept without the fear of a messy and financially devastating divorce if things didn't work out would mean more to me than if that little piece of paper was used as a ball and chain. jmho

Lenin Cat
June 17th, 2009, 12:45 AM
keep the government out of my bedroom, the government shouldn't recognize ANY form of marriage.

as a atheist, Marxist-Leninist, and a polyamonist, it is retarded to be married or hold commitments, go home fuck who ever you want, wail fucking someone else.

Tsar Phalanxia
June 17th, 2009, 09:01 AM
What's the Marxist perspective on Homosexuality?

Lenin Cat
June 17th, 2009, 06:11 PM
Its a natural process of nature.

Yiuel
June 17th, 2009, 06:14 PM
Its a natural process of nature.

That's just too easy. Everything can be said to be natural, especially since humans are part of Nature, not living in any independent realm.

fomenter
June 17th, 2009, 06:49 PM
in Russia Stalin made homosexuality illegal and Khrushchev kept basically the same laws, things didn't begin to change till the 1970's (much like the west) and weren't made legal til around 1993

post revolution Cuba imprisoned gays and lesbians in forced labour camps w/o trials or charges. in Cuba homosexual acts were made legal around 1979
they "as far as i know" have no gay marriage or civil unions there today.

Castro>
homosexuals should not be allowed in positions where they are able to exert influence upon young people. In the conditions under which we live, because of the problems which our country is facing, we must inculcate your youth with the spirit of discipline, of struggle, of work... we would never come to believe that a homosexual could embody the conditions and requirements of conduct that would enable us to consider him a true Revolutionary, a true Communist militant. A deviation of that nature clashes with the concept we have of what a militant Communist must be. communism has a equal and in some cases worse record for human rights for gays than the capitalist west.

Lenin Cat
June 17th, 2009, 07:02 PM
to bad im not a stalinist or a castroista

lenin made homosexuality fully legal before stalin made it iilegal.

fomenter
June 17th, 2009, 07:05 PM
ya communism would work perfectly if it wasn't being practiced by people, dam humans messing things up by acting like humans ...

tagnostic
June 17th, 2009, 07:07 PM
my computer is a fascist
it won't even share the printer

Lenin Cat
June 17th, 2009, 07:07 PM
bull fucking shit, it failed because of burecratic degeneration, go troll somewere else.

fomenter
June 17th, 2009, 07:09 PM
bull fucking shit, it failed because of burecratic degeneration, go troll somewere else.
bureaucracies are not made up of people LOL

Tsar Phalanxia
June 18th, 2009, 09:06 AM
ya communism would work perfectly if it wasn't being practiced by people, dam humans messing things up by acting like humans ...

I know! Let's kill all the humans, then Communism would work perfectly!

Oh wait, we've already tried that...

Nosferatu
June 21st, 2009, 05:28 AM
bull fucking shit, it failed because of burecratic degeneration, go troll somewere else.

See...I knew U were fake...a true commie would have had a structured remark to facillitate the 'true communist' agendi...but you yielded to the word 'fuck'...just like a dick...head. This is a serious discussion thread...you should be banned from this site...you are to explosive and dangerous. I think you are probably from some Islamic country faking communism. U make me wanna PUKE !

djura
June 23rd, 2009, 02:06 PM
Its a natural process of nature.
well... not entirely correct
Although, Lenin did not pay regard to marriage as union acceptance by two beings, he did state ones that all behavior that undermines society's prosperity is wicked and will be dealt with. From this one could determine that homosexuality is wrong, as no children result from such union, and in fact, future lack of work force will result in degradation of planned production. This is only one way of looking at it, maybe Lenin meant something completely different.
You are right about one thing though - purely communist perspective pays no attention to ones sexual orientation. Certain liberties, such as sexual, are guaranteed by birth. You may find such perspectives in diaries of Che Guevara during his travels (53-56). As he went to medical school, her understood rather well human psychology and all aspects of same sex attraction. I need to look up exact words, but as I remember he found nothing foul in such behavior.
Marx on the other hand, viewed people as sociological subjects in interaction with one another. Although he never openly discussed homosexuality (to best of my knowledge) he did greatly underline the importance of everyone's individual happiness. He was also a strong believer in woman's rights, and had always enforced the equality between sexes, so that's good enough for me.
As far as Stalin goes, he was a dictator, pure and simple. His personal views ware never to be taken as communist, as his behavior was way too aggressive to reflect any views really. Castro become a dictator the second he came to power, or a few years after, and it's a shame really, for his original ideas ware brilliant.

Nosferatu
June 23rd, 2009, 11:32 PM
keep the government out of my bedroom, the government shouldn't recognize ANY form of marriage.

as a atheist, Marxist-Leninist, and a polyamonist, it is retarded to be married or hold commitments, go home fuck who ever you want, wail fucking someone else.

Can i cum in?

Sam Hunter
July 30th, 2009, 02:31 PM
as long as you keep your homosexual bullshit to yourself i don't care what you do.

fomenter
July 30th, 2009, 05:56 PM
you are replying to a troll who is gone..
thought you might like to know

Sam Hunter
July 30th, 2009, 10:48 PM
ah thanks i didn't notice that. i've only been a minister for a day so i'm just finding my feet in the forums, i don't usually post or even register in forums.

fomenter
July 30th, 2009, 11:08 PM
no worries look around and dive in, the cog is in transition a bit right now so new people and ideas are very welcomed ..have fun...

rzm61
August 3rd, 2009, 12:51 AM
no worries look around and dive in, the cog is in transition a bit right now so new people and ideas are very welcomed ..have fun...


Already doing a good job with the new smilies. :fap:

OfficerFriendly
August 3rd, 2009, 12:00 PM
Unless you are willing to marry one of them, let the homos get married then.

I myself was willing to marry female lesbo twins, who are hot and into incest. But, none were found :(

Dr Goofy Mofo
August 4th, 2009, 12:10 AM
Already doing a good job with the new smilies. :fap:

Holy moly!

:jawdrop:

The Good Reverend Roger
August 4th, 2009, 04:34 AM
Holy moly!

:jawdrop:


I have about 20 to add, but I don't seem to have the button to do so.

fomenter
August 4th, 2009, 04:59 AM
send them to me, i will get it done..

Dr Goofy Mofo
August 5th, 2009, 04:50 AM
I don't have that button either

tagnostic
August 5th, 2009, 11:44 AM
I don't have that button either

its right next
to the
"any" key

Daruko
August 6th, 2009, 08:17 PM
its right next
to the
"any" key
i love that joke
is that from the simpsons writers, or did they borrow it?

The Good Reverend Roger
August 7th, 2009, 02:37 AM
send them to me, i will get it done..


Balls. We should be able to do that at whim.

:mad:

tagnostic
August 7th, 2009, 03:38 AM
Balls. We should be able to do that at whim.

:mad:

smiley reboot

ctrl/alt/whim

rzm61
August 7th, 2009, 09:00 AM
Balls. We should be able to do that at whim.

:mad:

:icon_rolleyes:

tagnostic
August 7th, 2009, 06:01 PM
restraining
from

whim-per
puns

Clark Nova
August 7th, 2009, 06:15 PM
This forum is a same sex marriage, its never going to give birth to anything worthwhile.

tagnostic
August 7th, 2009, 06:26 PM
its never going to give birth to anything worthwhile.

define "worthwhile"
and does this
qualify as
safe text?

Clark Nova
August 7th, 2009, 07:53 PM
define "worthwhile"
and does this
qualify as
safe text?

Worth the time and energy invested in it, things that are not worthwhile would be the cog.

Daruko
August 7th, 2009, 08:03 PM
Is it that we have too many black people, or too many gays?
Which is bothering you more?

rzm61
August 7th, 2009, 08:28 PM
things that are not worthwhile would be the cog.

:troll:

But if that's the case, then why are you here?

tagnostic
August 7th, 2009, 09:40 PM
Worth the time and energy invested in it, things that are not worthwhile would be the cog.

i bought shares
of
rolex
and
red bull

situation under control

Synonymous
August 10th, 2009, 11:48 AM
What we need to do is start a religion that gains international recognition as an official religion. Then you have an official gay marriage ceremony as a major tenant of that religion. The USA and Europe and most "Civilised" countries in the UN have a freedom to practise religion unencumbered as part of their mandate.

Then you could get married no matter what gender your partner is, otherwise it would be religious persecution.

After all, lots of religious faiths have a version of a commitment ceremony and all of them are officially recognised by the governments of USA or UK.

What kind of religious group could we convince to have this as part of it's mandate? Maybe the Jedis?

The Good Reverend Roger
August 11th, 2009, 03:37 AM
:icon_rolleyes:

It's my internets, I can rage if I want to.

Loki
August 12th, 2009, 01:07 AM
It's my internets, I can rage if I want to.

Feeding me lines :d

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWEQCOOj7JI

Cheesemonkeys24
August 14th, 2009, 02:24 AM
I have the opinion that people should have the right to do what they want to do and stay with the people that they want to be with. Any way, If you stop gay marriage, there will still be gay people. Stopping the marriage won't do anything to stop gayness.

Synonymous
August 18th, 2009, 01:52 AM
What we need to do is start a religion that gains international recognition as an official religion. Then you have an official gay marriage ceremony as a major tenant of that religion. The USA and Europe and most "Civilised" countries in the UN have a freedom to practise religion unencumbered as part of their mandate.

Then you could get married no matter what gender your partner is, otherwise it would be religious persecution.

After all, lots of religious faiths have a version of a commitment ceremony and all of them are officially recognised by the governments of USA or UK.

What kind of religious group could we convince to have this as part of it's mandate? Maybe the Jedis?

Nobody took the bait eh? What kind of free thinking religion could propose gay marriage as one of it's matrimonial rites. Think of what the Church of Google could do for Gay Rights. You would have a lot more followers I tell you!

Dr Goofy Mofo
August 18th, 2009, 04:13 AM
Nobody took the bait eh? What kind of free thinking religion could propose gay marriage as one of it's matrimonial rites. Think of what the Church of Google could do for Gay Rights. You would have a lot more followers I tell you!

Yes cause 5 people and a bottle of jack can save the world from ignorance.:icon_rolleyes:

Babylon Horuv
November 29th, 2009, 01:02 AM
I really can't understand why anyone would want to 'get married'.

As an atheist and a feminist, a misogynist religion based church ceremony to have a non-existent 'God' recognize my union holds no appeal for me.

As an anti-authoritarian, separation of self & state advocate, civil unions hold no appeal for me either and this is why (http://docs.google.com/View?docID=dhpmkpm4_33fxnhj2c7&revision=_latest).

Some quotes:

Basically, I believe that neither the church nor the state should have any business in citizens bedrooms or relationships.
A commitment (and any 'contracts') should be made between the only parties involved in the relationship - the couple.

Besides, a promise to commit that is kept without the fear of a messy and financially devastating divorce if things didn't work out would mean more to me than if that little piece of paper was used as a ball and chain. jmho

You are an Atheist? You deny the divinity of Google?

Babylon Horuv
November 29th, 2009, 01:12 AM
What we need to do is start a religion that gains international recognition as an official religion. Then you have an official gay marriage ceremony as a major tenant of that religion. The USA and Europe and most "Civilised" countries in the UN have a freedom to practise religion unencumbered as part of their mandate.

Then you could get married no matter what gender your partner is, otherwise it would be religious persecution.

After all, lots of religious faiths have a version of a commitment ceremony and all of them are officially recognised by the governments of USA or UK.

What kind of religious group could we convince to have this as part of it's mandate? Maybe the Jedis?


Anglicans, which are one of the largest and oldest branches of Protestantism, already do this. Also Conservative Jews. Doesn't seem to help.

Sapient
December 10th, 2009, 10:52 PM
Pro's and con's of it. Marriage of course can never be changed from man and woman to same sex.

My question is: why not? Many religions have marriage and many of those support homosexuality. Of the most prominent are: Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism, Jainism, some Sikhs, modern day Zoroastrianism, many Native American religions, and Googlism (http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-californias-no-on-8.html). How is it that in the United States, we have freedom to religious expression, yet we are suppressed by laws rooted in religious prejudice?

If marriage is present in all of these religions, who is to say which is right? And who is to say what can and cannot be achieved. Since we have a separation of church and state, i believe that the government should stop using the term "marriage" and substitute it with "civil union," whether hetero- or homosexual. Marriage has a religious connotation which in itself defies those boundaries. This will also help to yield politicians from asserting their religious views on our laws.

One of my favorite views on this subject is:

Your Church and your religion has every right to protest homosexuality. Your Church and your religion does not have the right to continue making laws that oppress others with different religious beliefs in the US.

Sylare
January 15th, 2010, 06:57 PM
I think that it should be allowed when we figure out what preist/rabbi/google minister figures out what to say, I now pronounce you man and man/I now pronounce you wife and wife.

tagnostic
January 15th, 2010, 07:54 PM
how about,
"I now pronounce you pre-divorced"

OfficerFriendly
January 16th, 2010, 02:22 PM
I'm not gay or religious or a traditionalist. That means I really don't give a shit which way the decision goes.

tagnostic
January 16th, 2010, 03:13 PM
it doesn't really matter
as soon as its legal
obummer will fix it
like he did the economy
and healthcare, then
nobody will want to get married

sengachi
January 23rd, 2010, 07:28 AM
I am a bisexual. Bisexuality is actually a rather ambiguous term. It can mean a number of different ways of viewing sexuality. In my case it means I see men and women equally (I am a male). the only difference is that I look more at guys faces and more at woman's breasts. I would just like to present a new point of view to this conversation. I honestly cannot make a personal difference between the two forms of union, other than the fact that I prefer male/female sexual relations, as it provides simultaneous pleasure for both parties. Doesn't the whole argument about whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry seem rather insignificant when faced with someone who doesn't notice a different. It's like telling a kid that Africans should be discriminated against (I don't believe this), and the kid says, "What's an African?". Oh, and for the record the reason homosexual males have more STDs is because anal sex typically results in some bleeding in the rectum, leading to incredibly easy transmission of the STDs.