Gays and Marriage

Forums › Off topic › Gays and Marriage

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | ... | 26

2153 posts

Uber Geek

Reply # 666085 2-Aug-2012 12:24
Skolink: 4. Churches which receive public funding to maintain a historical building may be pressured to. Good, they should be pressured to do so. (Since they're taking MY taxpayers dollars) Skolink: 5. Shall we agree to disagree on this one? That just means you don't have an acceptable answer and you know it.

kyhwana2

2153 posts

Uber Geek

Reply # 666088 2-Aug-2012 12:24
mattRSK: That's fine. But others want to get married too, and not necessarily have kids. It's up to them and their believes, not to yours or mine. Give them the rights to do so. It won't affect you or your family as it is now. But will certainly make their lives better. As I said before, we shouldn't fight about not giving rights to people. We should fightt about people having rights taken away. So why not change the definiton of a civil union? Yes, we'll change the definition of a CU to marriage. That works.

KevinL

539 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Reply # 666091 2-Aug-2012 12:25
BraaiGuy: kyhwana2: mattRSK: My understanding of marriage is that it is about starting a family. Same sex couples biologically can not have children. We've been over this and you're wrong. (You're wrong because people who don't plan on having kids get married as well as people who can't have kids too) No. I think he is right. (But thats my view) At the end of the day, why should Gay and Lesbian couples have the right to have children if they can't produce them? If they want them, then do what everybody else does. Make them. But why should we socially try to fix a problem that nature does not support? And hence it goes back to my terminology that Gay and lesbian relationships are not normal. I know this comment probably will spark a reaction, but really no harm meant. And apologies if anybody takes offence. But again its just my view, and my view is what was asked for. I'm just curious. And please lets exclude heterosexual couples that are not able to reproduce from your replies. (I know you've asked to exclude heterosexual couples, but I don't care) We do socially try to fix a problem that nature does not support, through either a) adoption, b) IVF therapy or c) surrogacy. Those apply to both heterosexual and homosexual couples, and hence your argument is invalid. Are you saying that homosexual couples shouldn't have the right to IVF or surrogacy as well, because "Gay and lesbian relationships are not normal"?

ajobbins

Awesome
3013 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 666092 2-Aug-2012 12:26
BraaiGuy: At the end of the day, why should Gay and Lesbian couples have the right to have children if they can't produce them? If they want them, then do what everybody else does. Make them. But why should we socially try to fix a problem that nature does not support? Why should straight couples have the right to have children if they can't produce them? There are plenty of straight couples who 'nature does not support' having children. And hence it goes back to my terminology that Gay and lesbian relationships are not normal. YOUR terminology. Not everyone elses. I'm just curious. And please lets exclude heterosexual couples that are not able to reproduce from your replies. Sorry, you can't exclude heterosexual couples because it's entirely relevant. Twitter: ajobbins

menabassily

389 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 666094 2-Aug-2012 12:27
A few points to make this more clear and also a question follows: Homosexuality exists in Nature, a lot of species do it, documented, proven. Nothing is more "Natural" than nature itself. If you want to say "it's not natural" please say "I believe" unless you have fact to base this on. Gays can have kids of their own, lesbians can for sure give birth, and we all (I think or hope) know what Surrogacy means Every family is different, parents or not, grandparents or not, uncles, cousins etc.... and we all agree that every kid needs a family. Questions: How many of you guys, or a couple you know are actually waiting for this bill to pass? and planning to get married using it? Kiwinized geek

kyhwana2

2153 posts

Uber Geek

Reply # 666096 2-Aug-2012 12:29
BraaiGuy: No. I think he is right. (But thats my view) At the end of the day, why should Gay and Lesbian couples have the right to have children if they can't produce them? If they want them, then do what everybody else does. Make them. But why should we socially try to fix a problem that nature does not support? And hence it goes back to my terminology that Gay and lesbian relationships are not normal. I know this comment probably will spark a reaction, but really no harm meant. And apologies if anybody takes offence. But again its just my view, and my view is what was asked for. I'm just curious. And please lets exclude heterosexual couples that are not able to reproduce from your replies. How about we don't exclude heterosexual couples who can't reproduce on their own from my replies huh? As we've said, why should straight couples have the right to have children if they can't produce them? How about answer that question? Since after all, if they want them, they can make them. Oh wait, they can't so therefore by your logic they shouldn't be allowed to. Also by your logic straight relationships where they can't (or won't) breed aren't normal either. If straight couples can't breed they can adopt, so therefore gay couples should be allowed to adopt too. Oh snap, there I went and did it anyway. Anyway, not seeing how this is relevant to you wanting to stop equal marriage from being legal.

mattRSK

804 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 666099 2-Aug-2012 12:30
kyhwana2: mattRSK: That's fine. But others want to get married too, and not necessarily have kids. It's up to them and their believes, not to yours or mine. Give them the rights to do so. It won't affect you or your family as it is now. But will certainly make their lives better. As I said before, we shouldn't fight about not giving rights to people. We should fightt about people having rights taken away. So why not change the definiton of a civil union? Yes, we'll change the definition of a CU to marriage. That works. Well no it doesn't because a marriage is between a man and a woman.

ajobbins

Awesome
3013 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 666102 2-Aug-2012 12:32
menabassily: How many of you guys, or a couple you know are actually waiting for this bill to pass? and planning to get married using it? I'm straight and in a long term committed relationship. Me and my girlfriend could run off and get married tomorrow if we wanted (and some day we will). The passing or not of this bill has absolutely no effect on my personal relationship what so ever - I have no personal stake it in. I am fighting for equality. For my friends, my colleagues, my family and for everyone to have an equal opportunity to have their relationship recognised by law. Twitter: ajobbins

chiefie

I iz your trusted friend
4989 posts

Uber Geek

Mod Emeritus

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 666103 2-Aug-2012 12:34
Marriage in church can be between Man and Woman.. Marriage in law can be between two loving couple... How hard is that for anyone to respect? God's Law vs Man's Law: http://www.truthinlove.com/analogies/law_of_man_vs_law_of_god.htm Internet is my backyard... «Geekzone blog: Tech 'n Chips Takeaway» «Personal blog: And then...» «Photo blog: I see...» Please read the Geekzone's FUG

mattRSK

804 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 666106 2-Aug-2012 12:35
chiefie: Marriage in church can be between Man and Woman.. Marriage in law can be between two loving couple... How hard is that for anyone to respect? What has the church got to do with it? We are talking about the legal definition of marriage?

menabassily

389 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 666107 2-Aug-2012 12:36
ajobbins: menabassily: How many of you guys, or a couple you know are actually waiting for this bill to pass? and planning to get married using it? I'm straight and in a long term committed relationship. Me and my girlfriend could run off and get married tomorrow if we wanted (and some day we will). The passing or not of this bill has absolutely no effect on my personal relationship what so ever - I have no personal stake it in. I am fighting for equality. For my friends, my colleagues, my family and for everyone to have an equal opportunity to have their relationship recognised by law. Good on you mate, same here, single heterosexual guy fighting for the rights of others. And why?? because where I come from they get killed for being gay (among other things), nothing pleases me more than to see people have the same rights and responsibilities (towards the law) regardless of anything else. I should have mentioned "gay couple" in my question. My bad Kiwinized geek

kyhwana2

2153 posts

Uber Geek

Reply # 666108 2-Aug-2012 12:37
mattRSK: kyhwana2: mattRSK: That's fine. But others want to get married too, and not necessarily have kids. It's up to them and their believes, not to yours or mine. Give them the rights to do so. It won't affect you or your family as it is now. But will certainly make their lives better. As I said before, we shouldn't fight about not giving rights to people. We should fightt about people having rights taken away. So why not change the definiton of a civil union? Yes, we'll change the definition of a CU to marriage. That works. Well no it doesn't because a marriage is between a man and a woman. Not once we change it to be between a man/woman, man/man or woman/woman!

menabassily

389 posts

Ultimate Geek

Reply # 666110 2-Aug-2012 12:39
chiefie: Marriage in church can be between Man and Woman.. Marriage in law can be between two loving couple... How hard is that for anyone to respect? God's Law vs Man's Law: http://www.truthinlove.com/analogies/law_of_man_vs_law_of_god.htm Correction, Marriage in law can be between a number of loving couple... Don't forget about countries (Arab countries for example) where they allow a man to marry up to four wives :D also their church (Islamic mosque) recognizes this marriage(S) Unless you say Marriage in law can be between 2 loving couple... in NZ, so far :) Kiwinized geek

Klipspringer

1298 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

Reply # 666111 2-Aug-2012 12:40
kyhwana2: The human body wasn't "designed" (Human bodies aren't designed, they evolved) for lots of things, yet we do lots of things to them that aren't "normal". Its unnatural, Physically. menabassily: A few points to make this more clear and also a question follows: Homosexuality exists in Nature, a lot of species do it, documented, proven. Nothing is more "Natural" than nature itself. If you want to say "it's not natural" please say "I believe" unless you have fact to base this on. Gays can have kids of their own, lesbians can for sure give birth, and we all (I think or hope) know what Surrogacy means Every family is different, parents or not, grandparents or not, uncles, cousins etc.... and we all agree that every kid needs a family. Questions: How many of you guys, or a couple you know are actually waiting for this bill to pass? and planning to get married using it? So because it exists in nature its normal? Female spiders eat the male spiders after sex. Should we as humans see that as normal? Could we learn from them? That argument is so flawed. We are humans, we evolved. We not animals. Offense can never be given, only taken ...

mattRSK

804 posts

Ultimate Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 666112 2-Aug-2012 12:40
kyhwana2: mattRSK: kyhwana2: mattRSK: That's fine. But others want to get married too, and not necessarily have kids. It's up to them and their believes, not to yours or mine. Give them the rights to do so. It won't affect you or your family as it is now. But will certainly make their lives better. As I said before, we shouldn't fight about not giving rights to people. We should fightt about people having rights taken away. So why not change the definiton of a civil union? Yes, we'll change the definition of a CU to marriage. That works. Well no it doesn't because a marriage is between a man and a woman. Not once we change it to be between a man/woman, man/man or woman/woman! So now you are back to changing the definition of marriage. I am talking about changing civil unions, not marriage.

1 | ... | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | ... | 26