|
Post by CountessRachel on Jun 16, 2008 21:25:09 GMT -5
I'd post the story, but I'm on a difficult comp and it wont let me. You can check it out on aol news.
So, what are you thoughts on California's court decisions? What is your reaction and do you think it will have any major effects? What are you thoughts in general on the subject?
|
|
|
Post by nymphadora on Jun 16, 2008 21:44:55 GMT -5
I think it's great that they're legalizing gay marriage. You might not agree with it, but at least allow them the chance to get married. I'm happy for all of the couples who can finally get married after waitng so long.
|
|
Kin~
Toph
Posts: 151
|
Post by Kin~ on Jun 16, 2008 22:31:35 GMT -5
I think that its fantastic that gay marriage is now allowed in such a major state. My standpoint on this issue is that I do not agree with those marrying and would never do this, but for those who are gay and want to be married... well fine! Let them, its their life. On the religious standpoint of the view I stand by the Holy Bible, which can be seen in more than one way. You may immediately think 'Then she is against it!', then you would be wrong. Though the Bible does clearly state marriage is between a man and a woman, it also clearly states so many more times that all human sin. According to this holy book, being gay and especially being married is a sin. But if we are all sinners, what does it make a difference if you are gay or not? If you truly cannot help it, let God be the ultimate judge. We should not have power over the morals of others, its a bit barbaric I think. To force someone into your religion is ridiculous.
((This is coming from a strong Christian, if you hadn't already guessed. : P Yes, I do find the church is greatly flawed and believe it should not have any power over the government.))
|
|
Horyo
RP Admin
All your bending are belong to us.
Posts: 2,572
|
Post by Horyo on Jun 17, 2008 2:42:00 GMT -5
The only problem I heard with this is that the Court ignored the people. At least, I'm not sure, can someone clarify?
|
|
attonbitus
Blue Spirit
I'm in ur clouds, steel'n ur thundar
Posts: 2,121
|
Post by attonbitus on Jun 17, 2008 9:57:53 GMT -5
Yes i believe it's going back to a state wide vote in the next few months where it could be over turned.
|
|
|
Post by CountessRachel on Jun 18, 2008 2:59:51 GMT -5
In the article I read about 2 guys from my Hometown (of TN) getting married in California while on a trip...which confuses me because TN has specific legislation stating TN refuses to recognize any marriage license that is not held between a man and a woman...
I find it unconstitutional that this country as a whole refuses to let a group of people get married based primarily on religious grounds.
|
|
xtal
Sokka
The best pill poppin' misanthrope.
Posts: 146
|
Post by xtal on Jun 23, 2008 23:49:40 GMT -5
Congrats for California.
I think the government shouldn't have their big noses in people's personal relationship decisions anyway. May more states follow.
|
|
|
Post by Blind Bandit on Jul 3, 2008 17:09:51 GMT -5
Hmm...hopefully the niceness of people around here will actually not hate me for what I'm about to say. Anyway, to say it clearly, I'm not that favorable of gay marriages. I'm fine if people want to engage in homosexual relationships and all, but I disagree with giving them the right to marry. Now I'm not going to say it's because I'm Christian, because I'm not. I'm an Athesist. But the truth of the matter is that the gay foundations across America have actually lied a lot of things to make it seem as if homosexuality is natural. I'm not going to bash on homosexuality, because well...people I respect highly are in favor of it. But the point is that marriage gives you certain tax reliefs and other sort of rights. When I questioned the issue of homosexuality, a highly qualified PHD biology professor told me that a lot of homosexual relationships are actually more "erotic" than what romance seems to be. Should love be more than just sex? I think so. Of course there are MANY exceptions, but from what I've begun to reailze, is that there are A LOT of "erotic" relationships that only deal with sexual intercourse, which makes me question how honest the propanda made by the gay community has been. And apparently my professor had friends who could explain the situation. I'm not going to put you guys down, I'm just expressing my dislike for the overwhelming support Gay Marriage has. And don't take this the wrong way. I USED to believe in Gay Marriage. I thought that it was a just cause and that a man and a man or a woman and woman should have the same rights as a man and a woman relationship. But apparently I just saw a lot of things differently when my professor told me to read up on these kind of things. I was pretty shocked to hear a lot of claims my professor made only to find that it's true. So, I'm not going to say you're wrong. You're entitled to your opinion. But for me, I'm sort of against this gay marriage ordeal. So yeah.... That's my two cents. Your expressing your opinion no one will fault you for that. And if you have proof of this lack of naturalness please bring it forward. I would make a case that just because some homosexual marriages wouldn't be for common reasons, doesn't mean the situation is any different for strait couples. Strait couples often marry for similar reasons. And if you count common law marriage, then you could argue its possible more couples get married for tax break reasons ectc. Also many people simply want to acknowledge to their peers, a possible higher power, and the government that they are bound in a committed relationship. It should be within everyone's rights to get married for whatever reason. Such matters aren't anyone's business but the people getting married. And generalizing homosexual relations to such a degree with out proof isn't something I would recommend. As the same augment could be used for strait marriages. Not to mention that intimacy is important for any relationship gay or strait. About weather its natural or not. From what I 've seen and read homosexuality is nature and nurture as are almost all human behavior. And is not a conscious choice and is not something someone can simply turn off. Quoted from : "Homosexuality: Nature or Nurture", AllPsych Journal, by Ryan D. Johnson, April 30, 2003 allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html
|
|
|
Post by hailstorm on Jul 3, 2008 18:07:16 GMT -5
-Zergsneedfood
Erotica or Romance doesn't make a relationship. Two people do. If they want to spend their time and lives together then they should get the same benefits as heterosexual people. The benefits are not about either sex or romance only; it's about the people who wish to commit to each other for whatever purposes that might entail romance and sex.
I'm curious as to the claims you bring up because it seems that only the open gay population is expressing this. I would believe that the non gay population would have just as much people into erotica than just romance.
|
|
xtal
Sokka
The best pill poppin' misanthrope.
Posts: 146
|
Post by xtal on Jul 3, 2008 23:26:23 GMT -5
-Zergsneedfood Erotica or Romance doesn't make a relationship. Two people do. If they want to spend their time and lives together then they should get the same benefits as heterosexual people. The benefits are not about either sex or romance only; it's about the people who wish to commit to each other for whatever purposes that might entail romance and sex. I'm curious as to the claims you bring up because it seems that only the open gay population is expressing this. I would believe that the non gay population would have just as much people into erotica than just romance. Amen! I've known plenty of gay people and none of them were in relationships simply for the eroticism (it helps though, heh heh) they were together because they truly loved each other. Also, most of the gay relationship I've seen have been more bloody stable than the straight ones. O.o So I wouldn't trust what your prof. says just because he has a fancy PHD. Always question everything. Also, as a Bisexual, if I want to marry a woman, I want the bloody right! Or at least some sort of recognition that has the same effect and benefits of a marriage.
|
|
|
Post by username on Jul 4, 2008 0:24:03 GMT -5
Hmm...hopefully the niceness of people around here will actually not hate me for what I'm about to say. Anyway, to say it clearly, I'm not that favorable of gay marriages. I'm fine if people want to engage in homosexual relationships and all, but I disagree with giving them the right to marry. Now I'm not going to say it's because I'm Christian, because I'm not. I'm an Athesist. But the truth of the matter is that the gay foundations across America have actually lied a lot of things to make it seem as if homosexuality is natural. I'm not going to bash on homosexuality, because well...people I respect highly are in favor of it. But the point is that marriage gives you certain tax reliefs and other sort of rights. When I questioned the issue of homosexuality, a highly qualified PHD biology professor told me that a lot of homosexual relationships are actually more "erotic" than what romance seems to be. Should love be more than just sex? I think so. Of course there are MANY exceptions, but from what I've begun to reailze, is that there are A LOT of "erotic" relationships that only deal with sexual intercourse, which makes me question how honest the propanda made by the gay community has been. And apparently my professor had friends who could explain the situation. I'm not going to put you guys down, I'm just expressing my dislike for the overwhelming support Gay Marriage has. And don't take this the wrong way. I USED to believe in Gay Marriage. I thought that it was a just cause and that a man and a man or a woman and woman should have the same rights as a man and a woman relationship. But apparently I just saw a lot of things differently when my professor told me to read up on these kind of things. I was pretty shocked to hear a lot of claims my professor made only to find that it's true. So, I'm not going to say you're wrong. You're entitled to your opinion. But for me, I'm sort of against this gay marriage ordeal. So yeah.... That's my two cents. TL;DR homosexuals are sex crazed promiscuous wh ores who don't know the true meaning of love.
|
|
xtal
Sokka
The best pill poppin' misanthrope.
Posts: 146
|
Post by xtal on Jul 4, 2008 18:33:16 GMT -5
It means Too Long;Didn't Read... or at least that is what I have come to understood it as. You see it alot on various forums, usually its just a short version of a very long statement. BTW Good one Kaneda, I liked that.
|
|
Sheogorath
Kyoshi Azula
Lord of the Never-There
Yeah, an Avatard and a brony. Got a problem with that?
Posts: 2,223
|
Post by Sheogorath on Jul 5, 2008 3:20:54 GMT -5
I'm afraid all I can say is this: Who really cares? So long as it doesn't spell the immediate end of the human race as we know it (I'm personally betting on another thousand years of humanity, then the end of life as we know it) AND it brings no physical harm to anyone, then if two people of the same gender want to get married, then I feel that no one has the right to tell them they can't, however... I swore off men, questioning the validity of same-gender love. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I think it's possible for only two people of the opposite genders to love each other. I merely question the validity of the statement/ proclamation/ whatever that "love is love." Is that true? Do two men in a gay couple actually love each other? Or is it merely infatuation? It seems to me that more homosexual couples are based on infatuation and lust than actual love, though I myself have little in the way of proving my theory.
Unrelated and related at the same time, it seems to me that for some reason, more and more homosexual people are choosing to acknowledge their sexuality after marriage to a member of the opposite gender and bringing children into this world. I feel, and this is one of many reasons that people call me a tyrant, that if a person knows that they are homosexual and is going to admit it after marrying a member of the opposite gender, then they should by law not only come out before, but also bring at least one child into the world so as to continue the human race before ending the marriage. I'm not heartless, so it doesn't have to be through intercourse, but they should at least see to it that another generation of humans is born.
|
|
xtal
Sokka
The best pill poppin' misanthrope.
Posts: 146
|
Post by xtal on Jul 5, 2008 20:52:39 GMT -5
I merely question the validity of the statement/ proclamation/ whatever that "love is love." Is that true? Do two men in a gay couple actually love each other? Or is it merely infatuation? It seems to me that more homosexual couples are based on infatuation and lust than actual love, though I myself have little in the way of proving my theory. Lol! Of course they can love each other you silly. Keep in mind a lot of people in heterosexual couples are also motivated by lust only. It would be no different than with a homosexual couple, they can be in it for lust or actual emotional attatchment. Take it from my own personal experience, and the experiences of other gay couples I know. And also, Don't you think there are enough people in the world as it is? Homosexuality is population control.
|
|
Sheogorath
Kyoshi Azula
Lord of the Never-There
Yeah, an Avatard and a brony. Got a problem with that?
Posts: 2,223
|
Post by Sheogorath on Jul 6, 2008 23:16:07 GMT -5
I merely question the validity of the statement/ proclamation/ whatever that "love is love." Is that true? Do two men in a gay couple actually love each other? Or is it merely infatuation? It seems to me that more homosexual couples are based on infatuation and lust than actual love, though I myself have little in the way of proving my theory. And also, Don't you think there are enough people in the world as it is? Homosexuality is population control. That's exactly why I feel homosexuals should be required to bring at least one child into the world. Homosexuality is population control in the wrong direction. If everyone in the world, homosexual and heterosexual alike, were to be reqired to bring only one child into the world, as in China, then the population wouldn't grow too quickly, but humanity wouldn't die out to quickly, either.
|
|