|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 3:32 pm
I didn't want to call it gay marriage because marriage is a religious term. What these people are really pushing for is a civil union. Basically something that gives them the same rights as people that marry.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:03 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monkeyinafryingpan Vice Captain
|
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:08 am
It should be legalized. It isn't right to be bias because of sexual affiliation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:12 am
I don't think it should be legal. I don't think it should be illegal either.
I think it should be taken out of the political arena entirely. I also think the government was stupid for giving married people special treatment. The government should make things so that marriage does not give anyone legal benefits. They should have marriage be what it originated as: a religious instituion/tradition. In addition, since there are issues concerning who gets to visit and make medical decisions if people become incapacitated, they should create a way to add people's significant others to their family. It should be sort of like adopting a child. That way, if someone wants those kinds of rights given to their significant other, they can do so without involving religion. Separation of church and state. It's the way to go in this case.
If your religion says you can marry your pet tarantula, go ahead, get hitched with a tarantula! That does not, however, mean that your tarantula should automatically inherit all your stuff if you forget to leave a will before you kick the bucket. If you don't care enough about who gets your s**t to write a will, it should go to the state. So go write wills everyone, or the government liquidates your baseball cards! xp xp xp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:31 pm
I think that it is ridiculous that people who are in a committed realationship have no rights because they aren't a heterosexual couple. I'll give you an example of my problem. A gay couple can be together for 40 years. Their family members can disown them because they're gay and not speak to them for years. This couple can live together, make a home together and know everything about eachother. If the one whose family disowned him dies, the family has the rights not the partner. If he wanted to be buried, and his family wanted him to be cremated, he'll be cremated even though his partner knows that he wanted to be burried. There is no next of kin when you're in a gay relationship. Next of kin goes directly to the family, not the person that they shared their lives with. I know that I sound a little overbearing about this. It is something that I feel very strongly about. If you share your life with someone man, woman, whatever, they know what your wishes are, they should be able to carry them out for you. Whatever the case is, the person that you share your life with should have the same rights as if you were married. If you don't want to call it a marriage, because thats defined in the bible, fine. Civil Union is fine, just let them share rights with their partner. They can't file taxes together, have insurance together, anything. There are more committed relationships that last longer, than there are heterosexual relationships. They've been forced to hide for so long, that the numbers in statistics are completely off base. I feel sorry for the people in San Fransisco who were granted Civil Unions that were revoked hours later. They knew they were going to be pronounced null and void, but they went to prove that there is a growing need for change in our legal system. Society has changed, its time that the laws change to include all people, not just the heterosexual ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:34 am
That is true.
I just think it shouldn't be in the political arena. At most, what should happen is that people should be able to add someone to their family or specify who gets certain rights should they not be able to speak for themselves. There should be a way to specify who you want to make medical decisions for you, even if it isn't someone you're in love with. If you would rather your best friend make those decisions for you instead of the parents that disowned you, they should be able to do so. When you're talking about rights like that, there should be a way to specify who you want to have those rights regardless of their relation to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 12:37 pm
love is love and my mind is guided by the wind wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 11:11 am
I say that if homosexuals can't marry then niether heterosexuals. its not fair not right and if you really wanted to know what could happen in this statement. honestly. my gf, me and all my les, bi, gay friends could sew the goverment to show that its not right and win because its bringing curch and goverment together which mean every state that says homosexuals can't marry will one day get sewed so fair down the drain that no one could live there. and ya know what when they start to think it was a bad idea to say that homosexuality was wronge it would be to late. cause they would be out of office and the USA would be less a good 30 states.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 21, 2007 2:59 pm
mrgreen love so cool. monkey I L O V E ice-cream i had some it was awesome xd xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2007 5:30 pm
Sweet dude,lmao.
In 15 years or less, this issue will be resolved, and our kids will laugh at us, like we laugh at our parents and grandparents for racism. We see no problem in it, and when our generation takes power, which is inevitable, the issue will be solved. I myself believe that Civil Unions should be legal, and that the couple should have all benefits presented to heterosexual couples. I don't really care what they call it. However, an even better solution would be, like Sparklers said, to remove it entirely, giving neither side any benefit except for the ability to decided on wills and act in the presence of a dead lover, medically and for the occult. Who knows, maybe it will happen, but I agree that a separation in Church and State is absolutely necessary, and I hope our Congress soon realizes it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monkeyinafryingpan Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 13, 2007 8:31 pm
I think that the point of marriage is to reproduce. First and foremost. Survival and reproduction is a primal purpose, before human emotion. Before love. If you cant reproduce with your partner, then you shouldnt be allowed to marry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:09 pm
Akkiko-san I think that the point of marriage is to reproduce. First and foremost. Survival and reproduction is a primal purpose, before human emotion. Before love. If you cant reproduce with your partner, then you shouldnt be allowed to marry. don't ever let me meet you in real life. EVER. cause i will show you a thing or 2 you won't get from a guy and what girls do better then guys. and trust me theres alot of things girls do better then guys. ever kissed a girl? made out with one? had a relationship with one? no you haven't so your single minded thus being don't ever let me get a hold of you cause i will turn and change your minds about that. pluse after wards ill kick your a** because marrage is to reproduce. marrage is to be with the person that you love all your life. to always have that someone you love with you. if you have ever fallen in love with someone and the4n say that then i feel sorry for who ever you marry because you basically saying that if someone was going to shot them and you see it and know that you can save them that you wouldn't and that you would let it happen. so danm i feel really sorry for your familly and for the person you marry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:27 pm
shadowinfaith Akkiko-san I think that the point of marriage is to reproduce. First and foremost. Survival and reproduction is a primal purpose, before human emotion. Before love. If you cant reproduce with your partner, then you shouldnt be allowed to marry. don't ever let me meet you in real life. EVER. cause i will show you a thing or 2 you won't get from a guy and what girls do better then guys. and trust me theres alot of things girls do better then guys. ever kissed a girl? made out with one? had a relationship with one? no you haven't so your single minded thus being don't ever let me get a hold of you cause i will turn and change your minds about that. pluse after wards ill kick your a** because marrage is to reproduce. marrage is to be with the person that you love all your life. to always have that someone you love with you. if you have ever fallen in love with someone and the4n say that then i feel sorry for who ever you marry because you basically saying that if someone was going to shot them and you see it and know that you can save them that you wouldn't and that you would let it happen. so danm i feel really sorry for your familly and for the person you marry. Im glad that you jump to radical conclusions. Ive kissed a girl and had fun times with girls. The way i feel about marriage is because marriage was never used for love. Marriage was an agreement between two men to set up their son and daughter so they could make kids and live together. It mattered not whether or not the two getttin paired up were IN LOVE or not. so obviously a marriage can and will survive without love. so love cant be the purpose for marriage. im not saying that i dont, wont, or never will love anyone. of course you will protect someone if you love them. but love is not the purpose of marriage. If you happen to love eachother, great! But usually you dont get to the love part, until after you have already thought about the reproduction part. And i would really appreciate it if you could debate me on the issue of civil unions, instead of jumping to radical conclusions, calling me names, and wanting to beat my a**. If you could just stick to the issue, you might have a valid argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:04 pm
Akkiko-san shadowinfaith Akkiko-san I think that the point of marriage is to reproduce. First and foremost. Survival and reproduction is a primal purpose, before human emotion. Before love. If you cant reproduce with your partner, then you shouldnt be allowed to marry. don't ever let me meet you in real life. EVER. cause i will show you a thing or 2 you won't get from a guy and what girls do better then guys. and trust me theres alot of things girls do better then guys. ever kissed a girl? made out with one? had a relationship with one? no you haven't so your single minded thus being don't ever let me get a hold of you cause i will turn and change your minds about that. pluse after wards ill kick your a** because marrage is to reproduce. marrage is to be with the person that you love all your life. to always have that someone you love with you. if you have ever fallen in love with someone and the4n say that then i feel sorry for who ever you marry because you basically saying that if someone was going to shot them and you see it and know that you can save them that you wouldn't and that you would let it happen. so danm i feel really sorry for your familly and for the person you marry. Im glad that you jump to radical conclusions. Ive kissed a girl and had fun times with girls. The way i feel about marriage is because marriage was never used for love. Marriage was an agreement between two men to set up their son and daughter so they could make kids and live together. It mattered not whether or not the two getttin paired up were IN LOVE or not. so obviously a marriage can and will survive without love. so love cant be the purpose for marriage. im not saying that i dont, wont, or never will love anyone. of course you will protect someone if you love them. but love is not the purpose of marriage. If you happen to love eachother, great! But usually you dont get to the love part, until after you have already thought about the reproduction part. And i would really appreciate it if you could debate me on the issue of civil unions, instead of jumping to radical conclusions, calling me names, and wanting to beat my a**. If you could just stick to the issue, you might have a valid argument. i did and if you want to judged my debating then honestly your not hat high on it yourself and had better not. and today people do not get married unless love is involed in some type of way. not how it was back in history. where they had a match maker and the bride to be had to give a dowry to the groms parents. we have freedoms now and people chose who they wish to be with if they love that person im saying that because thats how things are to day. you want me to truely be honest if you have do things with a girl and have loved her you would want to marry her right? ofcorse right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Monkeyinafryingpan Vice Captain
|
Posted: Sat Mar 24, 2007 6:13 pm
shadowinfaith Akkiko-san shadowinfaith Akkiko-san I think that the point of marriage is to reproduce. First and foremost. Survival and reproduction is a primal purpose, before human emotion. Before love. If you cant reproduce with your partner, then you shouldnt be allowed to marry. don't ever let me meet you in real life. EVER. cause i will show you a thing or 2 you won't get from a guy and what girls do better then guys. and trust me theres alot of things girls do better then guys. ever kissed a girl? made out with one? had a relationship with one? no you haven't so your single minded thus being don't ever let me get a hold of you cause i will turn and change your minds about that. pluse after wards ill kick your a** because marrage is to reproduce. marrage is to be with the person that you love all your life. to always have that someone you love with you. if you have ever fallen in love with someone and the4n say that then i feel sorry for who ever you marry because you basically saying that if someone was going to shot them and you see it and know that you can save them that you wouldn't and that you would let it happen. so danm i feel really sorry for your familly and for the person you marry. Im glad that you jump to radical conclusions. Ive kissed a girl and had fun times with girls. The way i feel about marriage is because marriage was never used for love. Marriage was an agreement between two men to set up their son and daughter so they could make kids and live together. It mattered not whether or not the two getttin paired up were IN LOVE or not. so obviously a marriage can and will survive without love. so love cant be the purpose for marriage. im not saying that i dont, wont, or never will love anyone. of course you will protect someone if you love them. but love is not the purpose of marriage. If you happen to love eachother, great! But usually you dont get to the love part, until after you have already thought about the reproduction part. And i would really appreciate it if you could debate me on the issue of civil unions, instead of jumping to radical conclusions, calling me names, and wanting to beat my a**. If you could just stick to the issue, you might have a valid argument. i did and if you want to judged my debating then honestly your not hat high on it yourself and had better not. and today people do not get married unless love is involed in some type of way. not how it was back in history. where they had a match maker and the bride to be had to give a dowry to the groms parents. we have freedoms now and people chose who they wish to be with if they love that person im saying that because thats how things are to day. you want me to truely be honest if you have do things with a girl and have loved her you would want to marry her right? ofcorse right. Whoa. First off, no name calling, we are all bound to respect one another's ability to hold an opinion freely, even if we do not agree. Second, marriage I'm afraid nowadays IS about love, which is how it should be. Long ago, yes it was about family names, power, and money. However, that has changed, and we should respect that, and change the system to fit our new world, which means civil unions for all. Some people DO marry for advantage over love, but that is not the case to many, which is why we have such a high divorce rate, as compared to years and years ago, when the divorce rate was almost non existant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
