|
Post by Grimmjow of the Funk on Jul 7, 2008 10:21:05 GMT -5
there are not enough homosexuals to have a significant effect on our opoulation that isn't an issue. should we just give half the globe vasectomies instead? no so just leave it be. the thought that it could have an effect is very ignorant about how many people we have.
|
|
|
Post by username on Jul 7, 2008 11:29:55 GMT -5
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. That's a tricky one to reply to because it doesn't make sense and isn't very firmly grounded in fact or logic. Homosexuals not having children won't cause the human race to go extinct, that's not really an issue at all. And how would they even have babies to begin with?
|
|
|
Post by CountessRachel on Jul 7, 2008 11:50:19 GMT -5
I think Eggman meant that people who claim to be homosexual should foster at least one child in a heterosexual relationship to keep the human race going. But I agree with Kaneda in that the human race isn't in danger because of low numbers...far from it really. Visit places like Japan, China, India, and L.A. Homosexual, non-child-producing relationships are a god-send. (In fact, I support child adoption far more than having babies).
|
|
|
Post by torrawrs on Jul 22, 2008 1:40:00 GMT -5
I'm glad a state finally had the guts to suck it up and give a group of people their rights. If I ever felt strongly enough about somebody to marry them, I want to, and the fact that I might not be able to is really frustrating. The fact that I'm gay probably affects my opinion on this, haha.
|
|
asian malaysian
Avatar Kyoshi
Let me hear you say this ship is bananas! B-A-NA-N-A-S!
Posts: 1,308
|
Post by asian malaysian on Jul 22, 2008 5:10:26 GMT -5
In the end of the day, marriage is about responsibilties not rights and benefits. Its about being responsible for someone else as you would be to yourself. Maybe even more so. I agree that there should be no legal restirctions to gay marriage but whether youre gay or straight, I cant stress the responsibility and duty aspect enough because without that- well -what the hell is the point?
|
|
|
Post by hh0ru5ma5ha11u5 on Aug 4, 2008 18:43:14 GMT -5
Indeed, the matter of being homosexual now is not a religious thing, but it is a 'taboo' now. It started sometime, somewhere, and this is the result, whilst myself is not attracted to males, nor ever will be, it is not because I find it disgusting, merely because I just preffer the opposite sex.
But ironically, I admire the homosexual population, simply for the stableness in their relationships, and not to mention their courage, and focus on each other, in the stead of worring what others think...
In Rome, we hath a saying: 'Tereb ere Peolus whu Slingener.'
|
|
|
Post by stardragonsword on Aug 29, 2008 20:08:59 GMT -5
But ironically, I admire the homosexual population, simply for the stableness in their relationships, and not to mention their courage, and focus on each other, in the stead of worring what others think... But some do worry about what other people think,not all gay people are that confident about themselves not just because of sexuality,but the same things that straight people worry about too. We're all pretty much the same,and putting gender aside,we're even more the same...some people like having a guy with them in bed,others want a girl. I'm happy they made the motion to legalize gay marriage in California,it's a small step,giving us all an equal chance at having the same rights as anyone else,making this world a little more equal.
|
|
|
Post by username on Sept 6, 2008 13:31:01 GMT -5
Well at least you admit your buls*** logic is bulls***.
|
|
|
Post by Gran Gran on Sept 6, 2008 14:21:10 GMT -5
Well at least you admit your buls*** logic is bulls***. Seems the post got pulled... fine...anyhow Kaneda DAHLING you know better then to leave it at sarcastic one liners! Love and marriage.... They have actually less in common then we like to believe. That concept is for the most parts only about 100 years old. In the olden days marriage was an institution to finance raising children. Pure and simple. Money (or rather the income and status) to do so was more important than the emotions. Couples had to get the OK from their Lord or whatever to tie the knot. Up until the reformation Marriage was not even sacrate! "Marriage is a worldly thing" as Martin Luther is quoted in these matters. I guess the Catholic Church had to have something to set them appart, but the world may never know. Soooooooo.... Fast forward to modern times. With the romantic era the love thing came into play...but be assured, most people still married out of economic reasons: A Soldier in German service or his Sweetheart had to bring proof of a dowery of 30.000 Marks to the Kaisers times. They where notoriously badly paid... so to keep them from defaulting.... And don't under estimate economic reasons for staying with a spouse, even if the emotions scream for a mushroom meal....especially for the 'Happy Homemaker' Now again, a time jump, many couples do no longer wish to raise a child, and homosexual couples can very well nurture children even if they did not sprung from their loins. So there is no reason to get married really, because you don't have to be to raise kids, or if you don't want any. So what is left is the legal obligations for 2 people. We have assets, life insurance and the final decisions when things are for worse, like illness and death. So we have not a heck of a lot from the Bible to go on that pertains to homosexuality and what little we do have needs to be read in the context of history. A small tribe wandering the desert with disasters and dangers just around the corner, surrounded (especially in the Christian beginnings) by decadent cultures where everything was a go. I think we can agree we have moved away from that necessity to reproduce, considering the worlds population is rapidly approaching 7 billion people.... And considering a homosexual relationship inferior to a hetero one...DUDE look around you! Is all I can say about that! People are people. and emotions are different with everybody, deep love or just the infatuation....not like heteros haven't gotten married on a whim before.
|
|
|
Post by Irascible Fate on Sept 25, 2008 17:08:59 GMT -5
I, quite honestly, think that too many people believe they actually have a right to judge someone else's right to be in love.
Personally, I strongly support homosexuality, and if a same-sex couple wants to get married, then so be it. They're human. They have the same rights to love and live as any heterosexual couple does. Isn't that what America strives for? The liberty and equality of all people?
When it comes to infatuation and obsession--that is where I draw the line. Whether or not a couple is gay or straight, when it's a hook-up based solely on sex appeal...that's when I think it's wrong.
But perhaps going to a high school with a lot of stupid people will make a person rigid in that fashion, right?
|
|
Horyo
RP Admin
All your bending are belong to us.
Posts: 2,572
|
Post by Horyo on Sept 26, 2008 0:16:47 GMT -5
Oh look Everyone, Proposition 8 is redefining California's view of marriage for this Fall election.
|
|
|
Post by Irascible Fate on Sept 26, 2008 8:54:02 GMT -5
Oh look Everyone, Proposition 8 is redefining California's view of marriage for this Fall election. You know, I don't think it's going to hurt any homosexual relationship if they can't get married. Sure, it has a lot of advantages, but if two people are seriously in love (oh, how cliche this will sound. e_e), then marriage shouldn't be their first priority. It's an awesome tradition, a declaration to people of their feelings, but can't they typically do the same without a certificate of unity? Same for heterosexuals.
|
|
Grandi
Bato
Prince of All Cosmos
Posts: 603
|
Post by Grandi on Sept 28, 2008 21:29:42 GMT -5
Oh look Everyone, Proposition 8 is redefining California's view of marriage for this Fall election. How does prop 8 look in terms of passing? I've looked up polls but they seem to be split with half the polls showing prop 8 passing by a small margin and half showing it failing.
|
|
|
Post by username on Sept 29, 2008 21:43:32 GMT -5
Oh look Everyone, Proposition 8 is redefining California's view of marriage for this Fall election. You know, I don't think it's going to hurt any homosexual relationship if they can't get married. Sure, it has a lot of advantages, but if two people are seriously in love (oh, how cliche this will sound. e_e), then marriage shouldn't be their first priority. It's an awesome tradition, a declaration to people of their feelings, but can't they typically do the same without a certificate of unity? The point is a step forward in equal rights.
|
|
|
Post by Gran Gran on Sept 29, 2008 21:51:40 GMT -5
Oh look Everyone, Proposition 8 is redefining California's view of marriage for this Fall election. You know, I don't think it's going to hurt any homosexual relationship if they can't get married. Sure, it has a lot of advantages, but if two people are seriously in love (oh, how cliche this will sound. e_e), then marriage shouldn't be their first priority. It's an awesome tradition, a declaration to people of their feelings, but can't they typically do the same without a certificate of unity? Same for heterosexuals. The marriage contract - and that's what it is - has nothing to do with love. It is all and only about legalities, rights and obligations. In some cases a woman ( I am sure a man can, too) can claim rights if the relationship existed longer then a year - common law marriage, a left over from the pioneer days. However, the effects of saying 'I do' are more far reaching then you consider, thinking love and roses etc. There are tax issues, benefits like health insurance, who gets what in case somebody dies, or who has a say so in case one is unable to make his/her own decision. (I never thought I forget that name..the Lady who's family fought over whether or not she'd have her feeding tube removed). and finally, who gets what should the union break apart.... No, love has little to do with it.
|
|