PDA

View Full Version : Gay marriages


Pinkfairy
22-07-2004, 09:53 PM
The Republican House voted to prevent federal courts to recognize same-sex marriages arguing that the law defines marriage as between a man and a woman.
Personally I don't agree with this. Isn't this the land of freedom? Shouldn't citizens be able to fall in love with whoever they want? I do understand that the president makes all sorts of difficult decisions so that the country runs well but this should be out of their reach. This is about peoples' personal lives. There's a good saying that should be applied: Live and let live. Gay marriages will not affect the country's well being. I don't know any gay people, and I'm not gay, but I do believe that love is between two people, not just a man and a woman. I went to a Catholic school where it's considered wrong, but I don't think it is. Marriage should be between two people who love each other, and the crime would be if they didn't love each other.
I just feel bad gay people who believe in marriage. They are being robbed of a right that should be everyone's.

Kelsey
23-07-2004, 12:43 AM
I support the idea of a civil union and equal rights given to couples of the same sex. I feel that they should be recognized by law as a couple. I don't, however, believe this union should be called "marriage."

Hazzle
23-07-2004, 12:46 AM
I support the idea of a civil union and equal rights given to couples of the same sex. I feel that they should be recognized by law as a couple. I don't, however, believe this union should be called "marriage."

Marriage, and people don't realise this, is purely a legal term. Before people weren't "married" they were "wed"...since that was the cultural and religious term. Marriage is purely a legal contract between two people to spend their lives together subject to a possible future divorce etc...so I see no reason why the contract has to be between a man and a woman. I mean nothing says a contract of sale has to be between a licensed merchant and a member of the public, EBAY is proof of that :) Let anyone marry anyone...yes...even their cats if they want to.

Kelsey
23-07-2004, 01:02 AM
Marriage, and people don't realise this, is purely a legal term.
Then I don't think it should be the legal term for a union between two people of the same sex. *Shrug*.

Hazzle
23-07-2004, 01:25 AM
Then I don't think it should be the legal term for a union between two people of the same sex. *Shrug*.

Can't see a reason why not, that's all. Legal union, we're all supposed to have the same legal rights...ipso facto...gay marriages ARE legal, and any country that doesn't say so is discriminating against gay people. I'm sure you're not arguing that we should discriminate against gay people in the workplace or anywhere else...I'm sure you're not saying gay people should have less legal rights...thus surely you must agree that they have the same legal right to enter into the legal contract to be married? It's a contract after all and nothing says a gay person can't contract.

Elijahfan
23-07-2004, 04:00 AM
i think they deserve rights, sorta up to the church or the religion that the couple is part of whether if their marriage or union does not go against their religion. seriously it's all bull to me. not like normal male-female marriages are the best either. i think it's 52% that dont survive. plus the whole gay thing being bad is just stupid. practically since the beginning of civiliced man, there have been gays or bisexuals. everyone did it, romans, greeks, even great leaders like Alexander the great. it's told in storys, like the illiad.

Hazzle
23-07-2004, 10:55 AM
i think they deserve rights, sorta up to the church or the religion that the couple is part of whether if their marriage or union does not go against their religion. seriously it's all bull to me. not like normal male-female marriages are the best either. i think it's 52% that dont survive. plus the whole gay thing being bad is just stupid. practically since the beginning of civiliced man, there have been gays or bisexuals. everyone did it, romans, greeks, even great leaders like Alexander the great. it's told in storys, like the illiad.

Religion and marriage have NOTHING to do with each other...weddings are religious, if the couples want them to be, and the status of being in wedded union is religious, but the status of being in married union is SECULAR and purely legal and societal.

Ok...now...religious zealots, look away now...




The funny thing is it's suspected that those who wrote the religious scriptures were ALL homosexual but probably in constant denial, hence the whole "it's a sin" thing. I mean perhaps there WAS a reason, as my Jewish mate said on his website, why Jesus hung out with 12 guys ;)

KeirazBabe
23-07-2004, 11:17 AM
Well.. do i even need to answer? i think you all know what i'd say lmao.. but yesch deffinately gays should be allow to marry.. to think they arent is the most stoopidest thing ever.. just thank fark that FINALY changes are occuring with the lisence of marriage between same sex couples :D

I think a great role model for gays who continuously fights for quesality is Alan Cumming :D

Taken from his site->

San Francisco LGBT Pride 2004

Alan recently had the honor of serving as one of this year's Celebrity Grand Marshals for San Francisco Pride!

When he accepted the invitation, Alan said:
"I am delighted to be Grand Marshal at San Francisco LGBT Pride. I have always been proud of who I am, and I look forward to celebrating with other like-minded people, especially in this year when so many people in America seem to be realizing that we have every right to be proud, and to have the same entitlements as anyone else. Sexuality should never affect a citizen's rights, and any government that withholds benefits, privileges or rights for this reason should be ashamed and run out of office. I hope this year we will have more to celebrate than ever before, including the resounding failure of the constitutional amendment which seems to me a blatant attempt at persecution!”


xXx

hasselbrad
23-07-2004, 12:29 PM
...of the sword.

There's a lesbian couple in the Pacific NW. I can't remember if it's Washington State here in the U.S. or British Columbia....doesn't really matter. They got married when the courts first allowed it.
Now they want a divorce...and they can't get one. bwahahahaha!
Be careful what you wish for, kiddies...you might just get stuck with it.

Personally, I don't care. If two people are willing to commit to marrying one another, so be it.

duckula
23-07-2004, 01:16 PM
Why endorse pervesion? If we are gonna subvert our morals why stop at gay marriage, lets legalise murder.

KeirazBabe
23-07-2004, 01:41 PM
Why endorse pervesion? If we are gonna subvert our morals why stop at gay marriage, lets legalise murder.
How is it 'subverting our morals'.. swetypie? lol

xXx

duckula
23-07-2004, 01:46 PM
Homosexuality is unnatural and immoral. It may be tolerated but it's not right.

KeirazBabe
23-07-2004, 02:26 PM
Homosexuality is unnatural and immoral. It may be tolerated but it's not right.
0_o Jaysus Christ Almighty! Firstly no way is it unnatural.like...wtf? Nor is it immoral.. how can it be? It is only an act of love.. dont know where youve got your views from but they aren't correct and most certainly are narrow minded and ignorant. Please grow up in this century.

xXx

ryan
23-07-2004, 02:55 PM
Homosexuality is unnatural and immoral. It may be tolerated but it's not right.

Tell us how you really feel francis.
Stop holding it back :p

duckula
23-07-2004, 03:55 PM
0_o Jaysus Christ Almighty! Firstly no way is it unnatural.like...wtf? Nor is it immoral.. how can it be? It is only an act of love.. dont know where youve got your views from but they aren't correct and most certainly are narrow minded and ignorant. Please grow up in this century.

xXx

It's not love, it's lust and ignorance.

It is immoral, the major world religions agree on this (moral's are about the only thing they are justified to hold positions on, but that's another thread).

It is unnatural. Sex in all it's glorious guises stem from the biological neccessity of procreation. Homosexual sex is in active opposition to the advance of the species.

Final point, I have grown up in this century and I hold educated and rationally thought out views. If you want to make your point you might want to consider acquiring some.

KeirazBabe
23-07-2004, 04:37 PM
It's not love, it's lust and ignorance.

It is immoral, the major world religions agree on this (moral's are about the only thing they are justified to hold positions on, but that's another thread).

It is unnatural. Sex in all it's glorious guises stem from the biological neccessity of procreation. Homosexual sex is in active opposition to the advance of the species.

Final point, I have grown up in this century and I hold educated and rationally thought out views. If you want to make your point you might want to consider acquiring some.

Oooh you crack me up me dears ;) for a moment you almost had me convinced your a pig-headed-shallow-narrow-minded-ignorant-homophobic-twat. "Well they endorsed your parents having you, so why not gay marriage?"

"homosexuality is unnatural and immoral" Unnatural? Don't make me laff.. Coming from a freek of nature such as yourself...if we stuck to "natural" things you'd have been shot at birth darlin ;)

Well then at the rate your going all condoms and pills should be banned and everyone should be procreating for the good of man-kind..."Homosexual sex is in active opposition to the advance of the species" Well so are you, but noone stopped your parents bringing your diseased mind into being.

"It's not love, it's lust and ignorance." What's love? Is it not the showing of affection to something or someone? People love their dogs, their cats, their cars...these are all types of looooove. In order for you to love normaly you lust over something and i dont quite get what we are being ignorant about darlin?

Pfftt dont get me started on religion.. i dont want to offend that many people... Christianity in particular is the most hypercritical religion going... (excluding the Roman Catholics) sex was traditionaly solely seen as means of procreation.. yet condoms are now allowed... abortion was seen as solely wrong.. yet now in certain cases it is allowed... orginialy you were not alowed to get divorced..remarry..have sex whilst on your period etc etc etc.. these havfe all changed so why stick to homosexuality as a sin?

I'll finish this laterz..

xXx

duckula
23-07-2004, 05:17 PM
Calm down dear, this is only a commercial.

On the point of me not helping advance the species: I am a strong, intelligent male who can safeguard the species and aid its develepoment through passing on my genes and providing technological advances (engineer).

Condoms shouldn't be banned as they protect the species from disease transmission. The pill also has varied uses such as the regulation and tempering of the female menstrual cycle. You see dear, these things are useful, unlike gay people.

On the matter of love: Lust isn't always involved in love, you forget the familial love, the platonic love and the love amongst comrades. Love is a demonstrable hormonal and pschological interaction between a man and a woman independent of pure lust (see: old people).

On the matter of sin: the majority of humanity views homosexual love as immoral, this is demonstrated by the fact that religions (most of them), class it as such.

Finally, on the personal attacks: do grow up, if you cannot take my well delivered argument in your stride and respond in kind then I suggest you refrain from posting.

KeirazBabe
23-07-2004, 05:25 PM
Sweetness you know i love ya really and if you truly believed in the whole 'refrain from posting' then i think you should realise that whatever you say about homosexuality is a personal attack against me so therefore be kinder in what YOU say please ;)

Also... stats show that society is becoming more and more secular every day.. i dont see how religion can be valid proof of anything nowadays.

xXx

Pinkfairy
23-07-2004, 05:26 PM
I may not understand homosexuality. And I was raised to believe it's wrong. I don't think it is because everyone's different hence believe in different things.
But whether it is or not wrong, my point is that it's not my business if gay couples get married, that is their own business. Whether homosexuality is wrong or not, they should be able to get married cause that's what they believe in. And when they do, the rest of the world can frown upon or look up to them, but it'd still be the couples' decision.

duckula
23-07-2004, 05:30 PM
Statistics show our society to be growing more secular but this trend is not mirrored across the globe. If I must desist on attacking homosexuality because it personally offends you then you must stop defending it because it deeply offends my moral sensibilities and beliefs.

ChocolateMoose
23-07-2004, 05:34 PM
Calm down dear, this is only a commercial.

Ack!! Those adverts REALLY annoy me...

But back on topic...I understand the things which you say duckula, however (and I don't mean to sound rude) its not your problem. If gay people want to marry, why shouldn't they? Its not harming anyone.

acliff
23-07-2004, 06:32 PM
Gay Marriage.... the changes in law that would allow this, I will leave to those who know/care more about the subject than I do.
Its not like gay marriage is depriving straight people of people to get married to. I'm pretty sure gay people know that they're gay far before they even consider getting married. Also, it would be distinctly wrong to repress people's feelings, and make gay people live a straight lifestyle, where they would be unhappy/uncomfortable for the rest of their lives.
I'm all for the freedom to express your feelings, having to hide them is a sad and terrible thing.

However, I think partially due to the way I was brought up (strict catholic, south korean effort ethic) I am somewhat uncomfortable with the idea.
For example, at work today, this incredibly obviously gay couple come into the sony centre, and I end up talking them through hifi cables. As people they were perfectly nice, and I was happy to talk to them, but one of them kept looking me up and down, which made me a bit disconcerted. When the guys left, I noticed that the guy who had been checking me out was wearing a bag which was given away free with cosmopolitan (as it had cosmopolitan written in pink on the back) and I couldn't help shudder slightly :( As yet, the media seem to be seeing gay couples as a curiosity, rather than just something that happens, which might be what was behind my subconcious.

Regardless of anything else though, I would go absolutely fucking mental, if my sister turned out to be gay. I don't know what I'd do. Of course I want her to be happy whatever, but I want nephews damnit!
:P seriously though, I would be terribly displeased. My mum would probably kill herself.

Kelsey
23-07-2004, 07:01 PM
I'm pretty sure gay people know that they're gay far before they even consider getting married.

You would think.

Why wasn't that one couple allowed to get a divorce? If they were legally "married", then doesn't that automatically give them the right to get divorced? Or, do they have to go back to the state the liscence was issued in or something, except that it's no longer legal here?

KeirazBabe
23-07-2004, 07:33 PM
Regardless of anything else though, I would go absolutely fucking mental, if my sister turned out to be gay. I don't know what I'd do. Of course I want her to be happy whatever, but I want nephews damnit!
:P seriously though, I would be terribly displeased. My mum would probably kill herself.

Darlin would you go totally fucking mental if your sis was infertile? No you'd be like well thers always adoption.. ivf insemination..surrogate mothers..blah..so why is it so different?

xXx

duckula
23-07-2004, 07:42 PM
Let me lay this out for you kids. Gay marriage is a subversion of the institution and admission that we can no longer legislate morally (which is you understand the underpinning of all legislation). A laizes faire attitude to morality and conduct is the start of a slippery slope to the fall of our civilisation. If we can't say what is right and wrong and enforce it then we are fucked.

Homosexual relations are wrong and must not be endorsed.

KeirazBabe
23-07-2004, 07:43 PM
Let me lay this out for you kids. Gay marriage is a subversion of the institution and admission that we can no longer legislate morally (which is you understand the underpinning of all legislation). A laizes faire attitude to morality and conduct is the start of a slippery slope to the fall of our civilisation. If we can't say what is right and wrong and enforce it then we are fucked.

Homosexual relations are wrong and must not be endorsed.

Yes dear! *pat on back*

Im not spamming..swears :icon_spam :err:
xXx

acliff
23-07-2004, 07:43 PM
Darlin would you go totally fucking mental if your sis was infertile? No you'd be like well thers always adoption.. ivf insemination..surrogate mothers..blah..so why is it so different?

xXx

I think its because of my Korean upbringing. Everything is based on blood relationships. Family travels down through the eldest son, children look after parents after they've retired, parents do everything for their kids. This age old process and way of living would be crippled by such.
E.g. if the eldest son dies, the family dies with it. I've been Britishfied, but even so, I would never ever put my mum in a home. In my mind, adoption, and non same blood children is just not the same.
Outdated beliefs for a modern society I know, but its what I feel for the moment.

KeirazBabe
23-07-2004, 07:46 PM
I think its because of my Korean upbringing. Everything is based on blood relationships. Family travels down through the eldest son, children look after parents after they've retired, parents do everything for their kids. This age old process and way of living would be crippled by such.
E.g. if the eldest son dies, the family dies with it. I've been Britishfied, but even so, I would never ever put my mum in a home. In my mind, adoption, and non same blood children is just not the same.
Outdated beliefs for a modern society I know, but its what I feel for the moment.

Ack thats fine darlin.. its patr of who you are.. but saying that my mum is homophobic..doesn't mean im going to follow her views..but her dad was a vicar- enough said lol. But then if family travels down through the eldest son.. it evidently doesnt apply to your sis.. i understand what you mean if the child is not blood related..but there are ways of the child stil being blood related so yar.. *blinks* end of that lol.

xXx

acliff
23-07-2004, 07:58 PM
Blood family ties run deep in my family. Besides, our family has been through enough trauma in the last couple of years, to be able to cope with yet another bomb such as that.

DragonRat
23-07-2004, 08:36 PM
Are gay marriages wrong? In my honest opinion, yes, they are. Personally, as a Christian, I find it immoral and distasteful, to see two men or two women wed each other in a house of God, when they know perfectly well they are doing something that has been specifically written as disdainful in God's eyes. I agree with what the Republicans believe (but dislike what they have done), as a 'marriage' is defined as the union between man and woman; that is what marriage is, and has always been. (Survival of culture and mankind cannot last without that specific denotation.) Personally, if they wish to have the same legal rights - and pay the same marriage tax - as everyone else, then go to a justice of the peace and wed into a legal union.

Now, as for whether or not I support homosexuality, that's a bit different. Sure, I don't care what people do in the privacy of their homes. And I enjoy the occasional veggie flick every now and then, just like every other guy. It's really their choice, what they should do with their lives.

On a political standpoint, the Republican party is decidedly conservative, and they'll go along with anything Bush says. In that context, I am disgusted at the political actions that Congress has taken. I may have my own conflicting views on gay marriage, but that does not mean one side or the other should be absolute law. So, on political and religious standpoints, there are two different points of view. One cannot simply apply religious views to political views.

Hazzle
23-07-2004, 08:52 PM
Please ignore Ducky...it's his time of the month...methinks Megs got him good (and sorry mate, it was you who began with the personal insults by insulting all homosexual people.). OWNED mate.

EDIT:Although one little thing...gay sex doesn't further the development of the human race? It's unnecessary to procreation and thus is without merit? What about female orgasms then, as they're hardly necessary to the reproductive function of sex, are they? They bring sex "down" back into the realms of lust. Are they thus also "wrong"?

Are gay marriages wrong? In my honest opinion, yes, they are. Personally, as a Christian, I find it immoral and distasteful, to see two men or two women wed each other in a house of God, when they know perfectly well they are doing something that has been specifically written as disdainful in God's eyes. I agree with what the Republicans believe (but dislike what they have done), as a 'marriage' is defined as the union between man and woman; that is what marriage is, and has always been. (Survival of culture and mankind cannot last without that specific denotation.) Personally, if they wish to have the same legal rights - and pay the same marriage tax - as everyone else, then go to a justice of the peace and wed into a legal union.

That's all a marriage is. All this getting married in the house of God...who says they bloody want to? Most gay people spit on religion as it frowns on their behaviour, but marriage IS a bloody legal union...if you want a seperate religious "union" you can have one...and that can be open only to straight people but marriage is a PURELY legal right and a PURELY legal entity. I'm sick and tired of fucking religious zealots stealing the word "marriage" and turning it into something it's not...it's simply a contract between two people that wish to be together...if you don't like that, DEAL WITH IT. Marriage IS a legal union, NOT a religious one...maybe religion needs to accept that and come up with IT'S own "religious" union?

On a political standpoint, the Republican party is decidedly conservative, and they'll go along with anything Bush says. In that context, I am disgusted at the political actions that Congress has taken. I may have my own conflicting views on gay marriage, but that does not mean one side or the other should be absolute law. So, on political and religious standpoints, there are two different points of view. One cannot simply apply religious views to political views.

The reason you find yourself in that position is because religion has misdirected you to believe that marriage is religious. It's not. It's purely a contract. It's not your fault, you're just misinformed.

KeirazBabe
23-07-2004, 09:39 PM
Awww love yas Haz darlin! tee hee.. very good point you made there and i agree with the whole marriage thing it is just a legal binding of two people..end of lol.

xXx

duckula
23-07-2004, 10:06 PM
O no, Haz has called it. I am defeated. My intellect lies beaten and broken on the field of battle.

You have provided no reasoned responses to my positions and have instead swathed yourself in spin and bluster. Please try harder.

I don't believe my comments were personal. But this is, KB, you are a twitchy little dyke who gets over excited and loses all reason. You are a hopeless banner waver who refuses to admit to herself that herself that her lifestyle is immoral and offensive. If you truely believed that homosexual relations were morally acceptable you wouldn't be so touchy about it. Your desperate rebuttals smack of someone who doesn't believe in their position in their heart of hearts despite wishing they did.

Finally, relying on a man to fight your side is just a demonstration of your weakness.

KeirazBabe
23-07-2004, 10:12 PM
Sweetness..lil warning..don't ever try to mess with my feelings upon my sexuality as it will only result in me having to turn up at yours and smacking you round the face.. with my rainbow pride hang bag lol.. plus a horde of gay men..bitchy ones at that.. scurred? should be :p

"you are a twitchy little dyke who gets over excited and loses all reason." exxccuusee you me *stands with hands on hips" and the award for getting his eyebrows shaved off and snuffed up his own nostrils goes to... haha.. *claps* i give you... your foot in your mouth! ok first- 'twitchy'? like..wtf? what do you mean by that? 'little' yesch im pretty short.. 'dyke'- prefer term lesbian...'over excited' at what? 'loses all reason' why thankies for thinking i had ne reason to begin with ;)

xXx

Hazzle
23-07-2004, 10:18 PM
O no, Haz has called it. I am defeated. My intellect lies beaten and broken on the field of battle.

Quite. Glad you admit it ;)

You have provided no reasoned responses to my positions and have instead swathed yourself in spin and bluster. Please try harder.

You've yet to produce any reasoned positions, and thus a reasoned response seems pointless. Homosexual relationships do not harm the reproductive process, because if they were forced to desist they just wouldn't have sex...so how would that aid the reproductive process? Thank you...it wouldn't. Oh...and let's not forget IVF...so gay couples can have children and aid the reproductive process, so if anything recognising gay marriages and their right to have children would be good, as it'd encourage them to have children they wouldn't have had otherwise (simply as they wouldn't want to sleep with a member of the opposite sex).

I don't believe my comments were personal.

Well you're wrong...personal relates to any insult that impacts on someone's person or their personal life...personal simply means "of the person".

But this is, KB, you are a twitchy little dyke who gets over excited and loses all reason.

And so Ducky loses the moral high ground. Shame that. Her insults were at least targetted at your arguments, and how stupid they were, yours are just targetted at her.

You are a hopeless banner waver who refuses to admit to herself that herself that her lifestyle is immoral and offensive. If you truely believed that homosexual relations were morally acceptable you wouldn't be so touchy about it. Your desperate rebuttals smack of someone who doesn't believe in their position in their heart of hearts despite wishing they did.

Ooooh...where to begin. Well you're a hopeless wannabe homophobe probably hiding your own homosexual leanings (I caught the way you looked at me at Heathrow...sorry mate, don't swing that way ;)). As for the whole "If you truly believed that you wouldn't argue back" bullshit...clever, bur hardly original. If you genuinely believed you were right you'd leave the arguments to stand for themselves, no? You're simply desperate to appear a homophobe, probably because you're afraid to admit what you feel...just come out of the closet, eh mate? Be better for you.

Finally, relying on a man to fight your side is just a demonstration of your weakness.

Me wading in had nothing to do with fighting her "side"...I stood up for what's right...you're just wrong...accept it.

KeirazBabe
23-07-2004, 10:25 PM
Quite. Glad you admit it ;)



You've yet to produce any reasoned positions, and thus a reasoned response seems pointless. Homosexual relationships do not harm the reproductive process, because if they were forced to desist they just wouldn't have sex...so how would that aid the reproductive process? Thank you...it wouldn't. Oh...and let's not forget IVF...so gay couples can have children and aid the reproductive process, so if anything recognising gay marriages and their right to have children would be good, as it'd encourage them to have children they wouldn't have had otherwise (simply as they wouldn't want to sleep with a member of the opposite sex).

Exactly.. if not anything the legalistaion of marriage for gays will lead to more families therefore more children being adpted.. think of the poor lonely children.. and GRAT examples of gay fathers are Barry & Tony Drewitt Barlow who have twins and a third child (identical to the male twin just 1 year and a half difference)... all three biologically belong to the dads..v interesting.read up on them ;) love them! hehe



And so Ducky loses the moral high ground. Shame that. Her insults were at least targetted at your arguments, and how stupid they were, yours are just targetted at her.

Yer.. was uncalled for *wipes tear*.



Ooooh...where to begin. Well you're a hopeless wannabe homophobe probably hiding your own homosexual leanings (I caught the way you looked at me at Heathrow...sorry mate, don't swing that way ;)). As for the whole "If you truly believed that you wouldn't argue back" bullshit...clever, bur hardly original. If you genuinely believed you were right you'd leave the arguments to stand for themselves, no? You're simply desperate to appear a homophobe, probably because you're afraid to admit what you feel...just come out of the closet, eh mate? Be better for you.

Ahh i see what it is now Haz sweety.. its coz being around me so long i have infact caused mr.ducky duck here to question his own sexuality.. thus repressing it and shoving all his homophpbia on me.. dont worry ducky.. its ok to be confused ;) teee hee.



Me wading in had nothing to do with fighting her "side"...I stood up for what's right...you're just wrong...accept it.

Pretends im black- AAA-MEENN

xXx

duckula
23-07-2004, 10:28 PM
Talk about shooting the fox.

apoggy
23-07-2004, 11:03 PM
I declare this argument over, duckula wins due to this reason:

8. Everything the Mods & Admins say is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. :p

Hazzle
23-07-2004, 11:05 PM
Hehe...except when they're disagreeing with the Great Hazzle, in which case they're wong...you should know that by now...it's the unwritten rule Baz forgot to put in...honest ;)

apoggy
23-07-2004, 11:09 PM
arrogance doesnt suit you haz, neither does posting off topic

ChocolateMoose
23-07-2004, 11:10 PM
Exactly.. if not anything the legalistaion of marriage for gays will lead to more families therefore more children being adpted.. think of the poor lonely children.. and GRAT examples of gay fathers are Barry & Tony Drewitt Barlow who have twins and a third child (identical to the male twin just 1 year and a half difference)... all three biologically belong to the dads..v interesting.read up on them ;) love them! hehe

I have an issue with them...they had surrogate twins, a boy and a girl - they had agreed all the boys have one of the Father's, and the girls the other. Trouble is the boy had an identical twin. And they didn't want that, so froze his identical twin and had him later. Now, Aspen (aged 4) has a nineteen month old brother (Orlando) who is identical to him.

I don't disagree with gay people having children at all, but the identical twin part of the story is TOTALLY AND UTTERLY WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

duckula
23-07-2004, 11:10 PM
Who cares who won.

DragonRat
23-07-2004, 11:28 PM
Eh, I may have been raised to think that marriage is a religious institution, which I do believe it is. I don't a contractual obligation between two people to love, honor, and cherish each other as anything that developed from a primitive standpoint; it had to be built on the idea that one man and one woman must bind themselves spiritually, emotionally, and physically together.

Marriage is not a social contract of any sort, and it rather developed from religion. Primitive man had the alpha male, and he procreated however he wished. Marriage demands the loyalty and fidelity of one man to one woman, and vice-versa. The concept of the one man-one woman union is a very religious idea. If it's a contract, then it's a contract steeped in very religious connotation.

As for the legalization of gay marriage, it doesn't really help nor hinder the improvement of the family unit. Family issues is a whole other topic, and it relies on the ability for the parental units to be responsible parents. Gay or heterosexual, parents will be parents - whether good or bad.

Pygmalion
24-07-2004, 12:29 AM
They're trying to make gay marriages illegal here as well-not suprising since our prime minister licks Bush's ass.
I may be biased being gay but...making gay marriage ilegal is like denying they exist. Its not that I WANT to get married since as Hazzle says its just a legal term but its the principal.

Hazzle
24-07-2004, 01:52 AM
Eh, I may have been raised to think that marriage is a religious institution, which I do believe it is. I don't a contractual obligation between two people to love, honor, and cherish each other as anything that developed from a primitive standpoint; it had to be built on the idea that one man and one woman must bind themselves spiritually, emotionally, and physically together.

You're getting being married and being wed mixed up. Primitive man "wed" his wife, he didn't "marry" her...it's a technicality but it's stuff like that that I've spent a while honing...sorry but "marriage" is purely legal..."weddings" are social bindings between man and woman, which may or may not have their roots in some form of religion or morals.

Marriage is not a social contract of any sort, and it rather developed from religion. Primitive man had the alpha male, and he procreated however he wished. Marriage demands the loyalty and fidelity of one man to one woman, and vice-versa. The concept of the one man-one woman union is a very religious idea. If it's a contract, then it's a contract steeped in very religious connotation.

Again getting being "wed" and "married" mixed up...in medieval times the two were actually distinguished by the church itself, but it seems the church now is either too blind or stupid to realise that being "wed" and being "married" are different. The word "marriage" merely means the combination of elements :) OR the legal bond between a man and a woman. Now you may say "man and a woman, must mean it can only occur between a man and a woman" but that'd be suggesting that gay people have less legal rights than straight people, and you wouldn't say that now, would you? As marriage is the legal union between man and woman, and as gay people have the same rights as straight people, ipso facto gay marriages ARE legal, and anyone who says otherwise is blatently discriminating against gay people, and clearly doesn't understand logic or law.

As for the legalization of gay marriage, it doesn't really help nor hinder the improvement of the family unit. Family issues is a whole other topic, and it relies on the ability for the parental units to be responsible parents. Gay or heterosexual, parents will be parents - whether good or bad.

That was more targetted at Ducky's claim that gay marriages hamper procreation.

ryan
24-07-2004, 02:15 AM
Even after all of this bickering back and forth, there is but one thing we can all agree on.


Haz smells bad.

Hazzle
24-07-2004, 02:27 AM
Even after all of this bickering back and forth, there is but one thing we can all agree on.


Haz smells bad.

I reckon agreeing on how bad I smell could be the road to peace in the Middle East...but...

:icon_spam

keira loves lipgloss
24-07-2004, 04:28 PM
I reckon agreeing on how bad I smell could be the road to peace in the Middle East...but...

:icon_spamyou cant talk your spamming :icon_spam :icon_spam

apoggy
24-07-2004, 04:31 PM
Lipgloss, this is your last warning. If a person is deemed to be spamming then an admin or mod will sort it out, you spamming withthat is only serving to be hypocritical. Any more spam out of you and you will be banned for the 3 days set by barrington

DragonRat
24-07-2004, 08:15 PM
Must I pull out the old dictionary definition trick, Haz?

wed ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wd)
v. wed¡Pded, wed, or wed¡Pded wed¡Pding, weds
v. tr.
a. To take as a spouse; marry.
b. To perform the marriage ceremony for; join in matrimony.
c. To unite closely: a style that weds form and function.
d. To cause to adhere devotedly or stubbornly: He was wedded to the idea of building a new school.

v. intr.
a. To take a spouse; marry.



mar¡Pried ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrd)
adj.

a. Having a spouse: a married woman; a married man.
b. United in matrimony: a married couple.

I fail to see how these two words are syntactually different from another. You could blame the church all you want for their blindness or ignorance, but back in the primitive days, did men 'wed' other men, or did women 'wed' other women? If so, why would they? The concept of binding each other in union is to procreate and help the species grow and survive.

KeirazBabe
24-07-2004, 09:48 PM
arrogance doesnt suit you haz, neither does posting off topic
Why i personally think it makes him look quite flattering ;) lmao

Story of Tony & Barrie..very intersting.. from www.pinkparents.com

Whatever you accuse Tony and Barrie Drewitt Barlow of, and they have been accused of plenty, my immediate and lasting impression of them is that they are totally clear about what they want in life. They are obviously besotted with each other, have several millions behind them, own a fabulous home with several top marquee cars in the drive and are blessed with a loving and supportive extended family. For them the icing on their gilded cake is to have fathered and be looking after their pretty, healthy boy and girl twins, Aspen and Saffron, now 22 months old.



The day I visited at their invitation, the twins were playing by the stables in the back garden with the grandparents and our chat was punctuated by normal family sounds in the background. But what a story they told me!



I had arrived, unwilling to judge them on the basis of the TV documentary and screaming tabloid headlines I remembered from 18 months or so ago. I left feeling that here were two genuine blokes. The one thing which distinguishes them from so many others, apart from their luck in money, is their tenacity and determination to live a dream. Hold on to your seatbelts because their story is a bumpy ride! It starts back in 1994 when they had been together for several years, were living in Essex and felt that their lives would be better if they were able to have children around. They saw an advert in a local Essex paper from Social Services looking for foster carers and became the first same-sex couple in the county to go through the approval process.



After two years of regular meetings, they were turned down flat by the Approvals Board who cited their lack of previous experience and the inappropriateness of a same-sex couple for foster caring! They were, however, encouraged to pursue foster care for a ‘Special Needs’ or disabled child!



They carried on with the process. They thought they could and should! They met supportive social workers, learned sign language and went before the Approvals Board again. They became friendly with a little boy called James who was severely affected with Downs Syndrome and wanted to offer him support. The Board again gave a flat NO. No explanation was given and in this system, 'two strikes and you are out’ operates. They were out!





Interestingly, according to the guys, none of the black, gay or older couples ended up with children, only the blindingly ‘normal’ couples.



So……. January 1996. Barry and Tony are in debt, depressed, living in Chelmsford and hundreds of miles from their families in Manchester. One day, Barry is messing about on the Internet and types a load of parenting related keywords into a search engine. Up comes details of American surrogacy clinics. Barry telephones one and asks, “I’m in L.A. next week. Can I pop round and see you?” The Agency asks for the name of Barry’s wife and when he says ‘boyfriend’, they reply, “We don’t help gay couples here, but I do have a Friend who set up 'Growing Generations’, the first gay and lesbian surrogacy agency.” Tony and Barry were intrigued. They had already spent five months donating sperm to a lesbian on a potential parental share agreement but it hadn’t worked so they decided to pursue this exciting new avenue.



At this time their business fortunes started to turn around. They had set up a new science related business from scratch and it was starting to hatch golden eggs. ‘Growing Generations’ claimed to manage the whole process and asked for a deposit of £49,000 to start the process. If we are talking money, the couple have probably spent £200,000 from start to finish! But this does include airfares, hotels, gifts and other expenses. They had already investigated ‘purchasing’ a child for adoption from American agencies who specialise in supplying (often Mexican) babies from around £50,000. They had rejected this option.



For those readers not familiar with surrogacy techniques, here is the science bit. More experienced readers can pick up the story at the next paragraph. The process is quite straightforward. The guys left their sperm on ice for six months (to rule out HIV). All in all, 26 eggs were harvested from Tracy, the egg donor mother. All were fertilised and 10 embryos developed. Fertilised embryos were then implanted into a surrogate mother called Theresa. No pregnancies resulted. Another surrogate called Rosalind was found and two boy and two girl embryos were implanted. Three pregnancies resulted but broke away after 7 weeks, leaving two growing babies.



In addition, Barrie's sperm had been ‘treated’ to only produce girls and Tony's to produce boys. At 20 weeks, they were delighted to discover that Rosalind was carrying a boy and a girl! Simple huh!!



Barry and Tony could not have cared less what sex their child or children were. They were ecstatic at the prospect of realising their dream. Their problems, however, were just beginning!!



The surrogate mother started to act very strangely four or five months into the pregnancy. She became very demanding about money, attention and involvement. She kept saying she was miscarrying and requested that a cook, housekeeper and nurse be employed to look after her. Tracy, the egg donor, monitored the situation but the couple felt exploited and powerless, unable to do anything other than ‘humour’ the surrogate lest she disappear to Canada, Mexico or elsewhere - perhaps even ‘selling’ the children to the kind of adoption agency they had previously investigated. At this time, frantic media speculation began. It started with an ex-employee approaching the Sunday Mirror and then Womans Own, selling an interview the boys had done to the Daily Mail and Daily Star. The children had not yet been born and they were being harassed by every newspaper and TV station in the UK and dozens from all over the world.



The twins were born in early December 1999. Barry and Tony walked into the labour unit, took their children and threw money onto the surrogate mother’s bed. They have never spoken to her since and claim that she is manipulative and scheming. In America, they couldn’t come home with the children because they had to sort out birth certificates and passports which they managed over a four week period. During this traumatic time, their hotel rooms were burgled, their video cameras were stolen and the stolen film footage subsequently shown all over Europe on TV.



They flew home on the 27th December with their two children and two nannies. Five burly (and apparently extremely attractive) immigration officers came on to the plane and escorted them off. Immigration insisted that the children be deported back to the USA. After extended airport–based legal formalities, the twins were granted a 28-day stay and this has subsequently been amended to indefinite leave to stay in Britain – although the children remain US citizens.



Barry and Tony signed an exclusive deal with the Mail on Sunday deciding that a ‘warts and all’ story would be a way of bringing some closure to this saga. Of course, it has done nothing of the sort. They are still constantly harassed by the media and cannot go to the supermarket without other shoppers staring and often coming up to touch the children uninvited.



Would they do it all again ? Yes! Yes! Yes! They may even have more children. They are not sure. Aspen really seems to take after his father and Saffron shows a lot of her father’s personality. Tracy, the egg donor biological mother, is friendly and visits regularly. She will probably have created around 20 children with her eggs, including two in her own family with her husband Jeff.



The boys have some simple advice for anyone following in their footsteps. Check the potential status of your surrogate to ensure you will actually get your child. Make sure you go through an agency and get a good lawyer! Finally, a strong mental attitude is essential. To quote Barry, "if you are a typical professional gay male with a house full of IKEA furniture and you have scraped together £30,000 or £40,000, do it!"



Aspen and Saffron are truly scrumptious, beautiful children and the boys seem very happy. If this is a strange story of our times, it seems to have love at its heart. Doesn’t it?


xXx

ChocolateMoose
24-07-2004, 10:55 PM
"Exclusive deal with the Mail on Sunday" eh? Haha! Think thats wrong. It was all in The Times as well.

It is indeed a touching story, and I congratulate them that they have stood up to all the ridicule that they have been subjected to from people who believe that gay people shouldn't have children. The only thing I disagree on is the Orlando part of the story. That is totally, and utterly in all possible ways unacceptable and wrong.

Hazzle
25-07-2004, 03:26 AM
Must I pull out the old dictionary definition trick, Haz?


If you do insist on doing so, kindly use the Oxford English Dictionary. I refuse to accept a definition from anything else, as it's THE official dictionary of the language.

But...you're right...wed and married are not different. Thus gay people should be allowed to both wed AND marry. Care to see why?

Wed under your definition...and I note you conveniently chose to bold those that aided your argument and ignored those that went against it...means to combine...nothing about genders.

And even your definition of "marriage" does NOT use genders. It says couple and "married man", "married woman" but it says nothing to the effect that the couple must be a man and a woman.

Ipso facto, using YOUR own definitions...you're wrong, I'm right...end of. If anything all you did was strengthen my argument, meaning you religious zealots will have to come up with an entirely new word to describe a male-female union as distinct from ANY union. :) Thanks for proving my case that men can marry men.

Oh...and primitive man actually never "married" or "wed" in the sense we currently understand it. Because primitive man chose one woman to bear his children, and then proceeded to bugger the other men when his wife was knocked up...y'see homosexuality is as old as the hills. Heck noone's addressed the fact that psychologists have shown all people are inherently bisexual (one part being driven by the need to procreate, the other by lust and sexual pleasure...women often find women make better lovers, and anal stimulation, supposedly, is the best a man can get, to nick a phrase from the Gillette ads).

Try again maybe?

DragonRat
25-07-2004, 09:30 AM
Your wonderful commentary on anal stimulation aside, I don't really think my definition bolsters your argument any more than it would not mine. As for the denotative argument, I find that the Oxford Dictionary is more agreeable to your standards, whereas the Merriam-Webster and American Heritage Dictionaries agree with my definition. As is, one can see the irony and contextual differences between British and American understanding of marriage :P.

Hazzle
25-07-2004, 01:51 PM
Your wonderful commentary on anal stimulation aside, I don't really think my definition bolsters your argument any more than it would not mine.

Always pleased to be of service to your sex life chief. Oh, and it bolsters my argument as it doesn't specify gender, so why must marriage be between a man and a woman? Marriage merely means the coming together of two people according to your definitions, and a gay couple are both people. See? :)

As for the denotative argument, I find that the Oxford Dictionary is more agreeable to your standards, whereas the Merriam-Webster and American Heritage Dictionaries agree with my definition. As is, one can see the irony and contextual differences between British and American understanding of marriage :P.

Aye...sorry as an Englishman the Oxford is THE English dictionary...we spell the words correctly ;). Y'know colour (which is direct from the Old French) rather than color (which is from latin, ironic given English has very little direct link with latin, despite the roman invasion). :D

And yes...it is ironic that the two nations should have a different idea of marriage...I believe the divorce rates speak for themselves ;)

Stormbringer
25-07-2004, 03:28 PM
Regarding gay marriages, I see nothing wrong if a gay or lesbian couple want to marry. If you are in love with someone, should sexual preference be an issue? I don't think so. I guess at the end of the day it is all subjective, but I personally have no problems with gays or lesbians or their rights, including marriage.

havoc
29-07-2004, 09:28 AM
Here's my perspective.

I'm a gay female in a long term relationship. I live in New Zealand, where there is no legal gay marriage (or weddings...or whatever). The law here is that if you are in a de facto relationship for more than 3 years, that relationship has the same legal weighting. So, being that I have been in an adult relationship with my gay partner for this amount of time, in the eyes of NZ law, if we broke up it would be treated as a "divorce".
Quite cool aye? I think so.
However. This doesn't take effect for stuff like home loans (which is where we are running into trouble).
Now, NZ is currently looking at introducing a Civil Union Bill. Which would mean that my love and I could go and sign this piece of paper, effectivly "marrying" us in the eyes of the law. The bonus in this for me is that it's not a religious ceremony at all. Doesn't stop us having a party or whatever though, to celebrate!!
Would this "Civil Union" bother anyone here?
Assuming the fact we're gay doesn't disgust you.

:female::female:

PhoeniX
05-08-2004, 09:25 AM
I think gay adoption may not be a good idea because if a child were at school they are bound to be bullied. and possibly have a ruined life because of it but gay marrage is fine.

duckula
05-08-2004, 04:35 PM
I have reconsidered my position. They can marry, adopt and all the rest. This is a prime example of deck chairs on the Titanic.