|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 07, 2007 8:16 am
looks like a pretty touchy subject to me, i say yes though, it should be allowed
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Read my previous posts people. I want someone that's going to go further with me in this debate...not just dawdle on the minutia.
Remember the focus of my arguments and quit throwing out the same redundant arguments that I've heard in every single debate thread I've ever seen on the topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jul 29, 2007 9:42 pm
I'd have to agree with Sparklers. However, I still say that a married couple with a child, either natural or adopted, should retain those same rights currently granted married couples. Raising a child is a lot of work, a lot of money, and that's where most of those benefits go when you actually have one.
Notice I included adopted. Yes, homosexual couples should be allowed the same rights everyone else is. And yes, some of those couples do adopt children.
I honestly don't see what the problem with homosexuality is. They're people, too. With feelings. Does what you have in your underpants really make that big a difference? It's who you are personally attracted to that does.
Now, Akkiko-san. To address your statement, that the purpose of a union is to create babies. First off... have you attended a wedding anytime this century? No mention of babies. And yes, I've attended several; I play in a quartet, and we do a number of weddings. Actually, that's most of what we play. I swear, I have Wedding March memorised...
Akkiko, you are overlooking a second minority group. You know, there's a reason why asexuals are called as such: they're utterly revolted by it, in many cases. In others, they simply don't want it. Are you to say that if they have no physical attraction to a person, no desire to make babies, they are to be denied marriage?
To continue, what about those people who'll make babies like mad? A druggie probably wouldn't have any second thoughts about it, and yet it'll be dangerous for the baby? Marriage is not about kids, it's about love, physical or otherwise. That is all that it is about: a mutual attraction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Dec 12, 2007 2:21 am
Bacillus Anthracis I'd have to agree with Sparklers. However, I still say that a married couple with a child, either natural or adopted, should retain those same rights currently granted married couples. Raising a child is a lot of work, a lot of money, and that's where most of those benefits go when you actually have one.
Notice I included adopted. Yes, homosexual couples should be allowed the same rights everyone else is. And yes, some of those couples do adopt children.
I honestly don't see what the problem with homosexuality is. They're people, too. With feelings. Does what you have in your underpants really make that big a difference? It's who you are personally attracted to that does.
Now, Akkiko-san. To address your statement, that the purpose of a union is to create babies. First off... have you attended a wedding anytime this century? No mention of babies. And yes, I've attended several; I play in a quartet, and we do a number of weddings. Actually, that's most of what we play. I swear, I have Wedding March memorised...
Akkiko, you are overlooking a second minority group. You know, there's a reason why asexuals are called as such: they're utterly revolted by it, in many cases. In others, they simply don't want it. Are you to say that if they have no physical attraction to a person, no desire to make babies, they are to be denied marriage?
To continue, what about those people who'll make babies like mad? A druggie probably wouldn't have any second thoughts about it, and yet it'll be dangerous for the baby? Marriage is not about kids, it's about love, physical or otherwise. That is all that it is about: a mutual attraction. I concur xd always wanted to say that...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
