Same-sex marriage

I'm not on a wind up, I honestly don't think gays should be able to get married. It's just hard to explain my reasons why.

I believe marriage is sacred and something done between a man and a woman and being gay spits in the face of that.


It's like, I don't think a mass murderer should be able to become a doctor.

Of course people choose to be gay, either that or they're mentally ill. If it's the latter than I don't think something as important as marriage should done while you're not mentally fit.

CollieBuddz wrote:Of course people choose to be gay, either that or they're mentally ill. If it's the latter than I don't think something as important as marriage should done while you're not mentally fit.

As i just said, it's not psychological, it's genetic.

JMB_94 wrote:

CollieBuddz wrote:Of course people choose to be gay, either that or they're mentally ill. If it's the latter than I don't think something as important as marriage should done while you're not mentally fit.

As i just said, it's not psychological, it's genetic.

A genetic malfunction, maybe. In which case I see it as the same as mentally ill.

CollieBuddz wrote:It's like, I don't think a mass murderer should be able to become a doctor.

How would you feel about a single murderer became a dentist?

Zzonked wrote:

CollieBuddz wrote:It's like, I don't think a mass murderer should be able to become a doctor.

How would you feel about a single murderer became a dentist?

Fuck no.

Zzonked wrote:

CollieBuddz wrote:It's like, I don't think a mass murderer should be able to become a doctor.

How would you feel about a single murderer became a dentist?

Not that bothered.

CollieBuddz wrote:

A genetic malfunction, maybe. In which case I see it as the same as mentally ill.

*sigh*

If you want to classify it as a mental illness that's fine, it's no reason to restrict them from behaving as they like though, so long as it doesn't harm anyone.

CollieBuddz wrote:

JMB_94 wrote:

CollieBuddz wrote:

Roloman4 wrote:

CollieBuddz wrote:Should we allow celebrations for people who are against new life?

No.

Who said they are against it?

Really, what an ignorant comment.

They refuse to use their reproductive organs for what they are for. Pretty much couldn't be more against new life.

So you're saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry because they wouldn't be able to produce offspring with their partners?

In a way yes. It's not my whole reason, because I still think heterosexuals who choose not to have a baby should be able to get married.

I just think we shouldn't celebrate people who deliberately go against human's design.

Let's be honest, homosexuals are just being rebels because they want attention. It's why they change their voice and wear ridiculous clothing.

First of all, homosexuality is NOT a choice, at least not a grand majority of the time.

Second of all, you're a fucking troll.

CollieBuddz wrote:I'm not on a wind up, I honestly don't think gays should be able to get married. It's just hard to explain my reasons why.

I believe marriage is sacred and something done between a man and a woman and being gay spits in the face of that.


It's like, I don't think a mass murderer should be able to become a doctor.

Sacred?

Bullshit mentality.

Also, how in fuck's name could you compare a mass-murderer to a homosexual?

Roloman4 wrote:Also, how in fuck's name could you compare a mass-murderer to a homosexual?

Protip: It's because he's trolling.

Zzonked wrote:

Roloman4 wrote:Also, how in fuck's name could you compare a mass-murderer to a homosexual?

Protip: It's because he's trolling.

I hope to fuck he is.

ahlycotc wrote:Where is the maybe option?

If the majority of the population agree to legalizing gay marriage, then it should be legal. There is nothing unconstitutional about legalizing gay marriage.

I might not approve of gay people, but there is no objection from a legal standpoint.

This way of thinking caused many of the problems in 1980's Iran.

CollieBuddz wrote:I'm not on a wind up, I honestly don't think gays should be able to get married. It's just hard to explain my reasons why.

I believe marriage is sacred and something done between a man and a woman and being gay spits in the face of that.


It's like, I don't think a mass murderer should be able to become a doctor.

you don't actually believe that

I remember watching something regarding this a few weeks ago:

I never really understood how being gay can be called genetic.

CollieBuddz wrote:I'm not on a wind up, I honestly don't think gays should be able to get married. It's just hard to explain my reasons why.

I believe marriage is sacred and something done between a man and a woman and being gay spits in the face of that.


It's like, I don't think a mass murderer should be able to become a doctor.

If you don't mind me asking what do you think makes marriage sacred? People cheat on their spouses everyday, people marry and for wrong reasons (citizenship, money, etc.) a look at the real world just shows how sacred people really thing marriage is.

El_indian wrote:

CollieBuddz wrote:I'm not on a wind up, I honestly don't think gays should be able to get married. It's just hard to explain my reasons why.

I believe marriage is sacred and something done between a man and a woman and being gay spits in the face of that.


It's like, I don't think a mass murderer should be able to become a doctor.

you don't actually believe that

I remember watching something regarding this a few weeks ago:

Truth. People who watch those shows and talk about marriage being sacred are straight hypocritical.

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:Where is the maybe option?

If the majority of the population agree to legalizing gay marriage, then it should be legal. There is nothing unconstitutional about legalizing gay marriage.

I might not approve of gay people, but there is no objection from a legal standpoint.

What about if the majority of the population feel that interracial law shouldn't be allowed? Or that a particular religion should be oppressed?

That would be against the constitution. Are there racists in the country? Of course. But they can't do anything because it would be considered unconstitutional. Like I said, I have no objection from a legal standpoint.

polska. wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:Where is the maybe option?

If the majority of the population agree to legalizing gay marriage, then it should be legal. There is nothing unconstitutional about legalizing gay marriage.

I might not approve of gay people, but there is no objection from a legal standpoint.

This way of thinking caused many of the problems in 1980's Iran.

What way of thinking?

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:Where is the maybe option?

If the majority of the population agree to legalizing gay marriage, then it should be legal. There is nothing unconstitutional about legalizing gay marriage.

I might not approve of gay people, but there is no objection from a legal standpoint.

What about if the majority of the population feel that interracial law shouldn't be allowed? Or that a particular religion should be oppressed?

That would be against the constitution. Are there racists in the country? Of course. But they can't do anything because it would be considered unconstitutional. Like I said, I have no objection from a legal standpoint.

Constitutions can change, if the population feels strongly enough is it right to change the constitution so the government doesn't protect a certain race or religion, or oppresses it?

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:Where is the maybe option?

If the majority of the population agree to legalizing gay marriage, then it should be legal. There is nothing unconstitutional about legalizing gay marriage.

I might not approve of gay people, but there is no objection from a legal standpoint.

What about if the majority of the population feel that interracial law shouldn't be allowed? Or that a particular religion should be oppressed?

That would be against the constitution. Are there racists in the country? Of course. But they can't do anything because it would be considered unconstitutional. Like I said, I have no objection from a legal standpoint.

Constitutions can change, if the population feels strongly enough is it right to change the constitution so the government doesn't protect a certain race or religion, or oppresses it?

From a legal standpoint, there is no problem. That's the beauty or danger of a democracy. Laws should be created with majority approval. Has this country ever been wrong with the laws or constitution? Yes. I personally approve of freedom of religion. If 51% of the nation doesn't, oh well. The 49% should try to convince the 51% or create a revolution.

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:

ResurrectionRooney wrote:

ahlycotc wrote:Where is the maybe option?

If the majority of the population agree to legalizing gay marriage, then it should be legal. There is nothing unconstitutional about legalizing gay marriage.

I might not approve of gay people, but there is no objection from a legal standpoint.

What about if the majority of the population feel that interracial law shouldn't be allowed? Or that a particular religion should be oppressed?

That would be against the constitution. Are there racists in the country? Of course. But they can't do anything because it would be considered unconstitutional. Like I said, I have no objection from a legal standpoint.

Constitutions can change, if the population feels strongly enough is it right to change the constitution so the government doesn't protect a certain race or religion, or oppresses it?

From a legal standpoint, there is no problem. That's the beauty or danger of a democracy. Laws should be created with majority approval. Has this country ever been wrong with the laws or constitution? Yes. I personally approve of freedom of religion. If 51% of the nation doesn't, oh well. The 49% should try to convince the 51% or create a revolution.

So if people don't agree with you you start a revolution, kill them, and ignore their views? Not a surprising attitude from you, is that what it says in the Koran?

Marriage is sacred. What people do after that has nothing to do with it. The moment they commit their lives to each other is a sacred occasion.

Obviously I'm not directly comparing gays to mass murderers. It was just the analogy I used. I could have used something like, I don't think a blind person should be able to become a driving instructor.

Although, now I come to think of it, the gays as a "people" could be considered as mass murderers. Not as individuals, but in the grand scheme of everything, they are a large group of people who refuse new life. Effectively killing it before it began.

I also believe this is fueled by the acceptance such as marriage. Homosexuality should not be celebrated or open. It should be kept behind closed doors until a cure is found. It's fucking everywhere. I was watching Torchwood, first thing I see is a gay couple kissing. Eastenders, two gays all over the place. How is this a good thing to show impressionable children? Seriously? What if a young boy is having trouble finding a girlfriend, he watches Eastenders and sees those gays kissing. It's on one of the most famous soaps around, so this must be normal, right? WRONG. So this kid thinks it's normal, and starts to think "maybe I'm gay" and bam, that's more possible new life destroyed. All because a boy was struggling with girls and was led to believe that homosexuality is normal.

That is one of the main reasons why gay marriage should not be legal. And why homosexuality should not be accepted openly in society.

We have 6 billion people and running on this planet, fuck possible life.

But no really I think that's a poor excuse, there is no threat (beyond super war) to the current population of the world, having a homosexual population won't cause ZPG or lower the growth rate, be serious now.

Homosexuality has every right to be open as any other way of life, and if impressionable kids want to choose to be gay, or experiment with being gay, is that the fault of homosexuals? Or is it the fault of people around him not giving him the support he needs to live a 'traditional' life.

What if one of those unborn children were to grow up and invent a cure for cancer or make cars run on water. The meaning of life is to be born, reproduce, and die.

Of course it's the fault of the homosexuals, but also the fault of society for having the mentality that this is normal. That's the key thing here, that it's accepted. There are murderers on TV and everything, but they are always portrayed as the bad guy and something a young child wouldn't want to grow up to be. Not with gays though, these people are faulty and doing disgusting things but we then turn around and say, it's their choice and it's a normal way of life. Bullshit, this is not what we should be telling our kids, and I certainly won't be telling my kids when I have some.

It's ironic that this whole 'live to reproduce' thing is only putting more pressure on the environment; soon after, we're all fucked.

It's like the "purpose of life" is also the thing which will wipe us out.

Am I stopping the cure for cancer from appearing because I use birth control when I have sex? Come on. If this was abortion, OK I'd get it. But this is not having children, if you harass homosexuals because they can't naturally have kids, do you harass old couples who choose to not have children? Or people who use birth control when they have sex?

Once again you're comparing gays to murderers and it's just over the top, if you don't want your child to be gay that's fine I probably wouldnt want my kids to be gay because I want grandchildren, but that is a choice/natural thing (I'm still on the fence) like the dozens of other lifestyle choices people make to their lives. And if there's one thing I'd want to teach my kids it's the importance of having choice, and not berating them because of it.

Watching gay people kiss on TV may turn you gay. Jesus christ

dena wrote:Am I stopping the cure for cancer from appearing because I use birth control when I have sex? Come on. If this was abortion, OK I'd get it. But this is not having children, if you harass homosexuals because they can't naturally have kids, do you harass old couples who choose to not have children? Or people who use birth control when they have sex?

Once again you're comparing gays to murderers and it's just over the top, if you don't want your child to be gay that's fine I probably wouldnt want my kids to be gay because I want grandchildren, but that is a choice/natural thing (I'm still on the fence) like the dozens of other lifestyle choices people make to their lives. And if there's one thing I'd want to teach my kids it's the importance of having choice, and not berating them because of it.

Once again, I'm talking about gays as a collective. Not the individual. A heterosexual couple could have so many reasons for not having children like, not having the money to bring the child up properly, not being ready, not feeling suitable to be a parent. But on the whole, heterosexuals support life.

As a group, every single homosexual is against new life because they won't stick it in the right hole. That's goes for every single homosexual.

I agree with you about letting children have choices, but some choices are off limits and I'd try to get them away from that. Being a thief is a choice, being a pedophile is a choice, adultery is a choice, but these are all choices that I'll warn my children against. You have the mentality I'm talking about, that being gay is normal. It's not.