gay marriage

[whakiewes]

People obviously did not quite read my argument to the fullest. The church has no bearing in this argument. There is only one current doctrine that prohibits same-sex marriage or 'union's and that is Catholocism. If the only people that hated homosexuals were Catholics, then same-sex marriage would be legal. As a matter of fact, if you wanted to contribute to the church, anyone who performs premarrital sex, says G-D, pisses in your neighbors lawn, etc... is going to go to hell. Being religious from the age of 72 to 77 when you die doesn't nessacarily justify a life full of sinful acts. Again, the church has no bearing on this act. In Italy, of course it does, considering 96% of the population is Roman Catholic. In American its less than 20%.

I have been told the argument that procreation, or sexual intercourse whether it be anally or vaginally is for recreation. I can throw this one at you as well; why do men seek to have anal sex with their wives? For the majority of people, sex is used for recreation. For some (Amish and FLDS) it is used only for procreation. The point of the matter though is what is the foundation behind sexual intercourse. Its a matter or procreation, not recreation. You don't have to put a condom on because it feels better, you do it because it stops you from having a child in 9 months. The fact of the matter though is that it feels so good, many of us desire to have sex more often than we would be able to have children. The point I am making is that the human body was never set up for homosexual intercourse. Its a change that people make, to the point of having surgeries, to make it happen. Do they not realize that if you have to use a half gallon of astrolube to make anal sex feel good, it probably shouldn't be happening.

As far as who is homosexual, I think there are millions of variations. The 1991 publication of the 'homosexuality' gene was the closest I have ever seen to the argument coming to an end. Even better than the 'I know plenty of good familied gay people' is the fact that nearly 90% (I think 88 or 89) of woman have desires to engage in sexual activites with another woman. This is often why you see girls kissing at parties when they are drunk, because without any inhibitions they can do what they want. Woman though on the other hand aren't nearly as likely to seek marital status as men are. My idea is that its the wrong choice, something isn't clicking right. If there was a 'gay gene' then it would solve the argument and the world could go forth seeking equallity. The problem is the 'gay's want it to be a choice, a freedom. Sorry guys, but you can't have your cake and eat it too.

I am not saying that homosexuals need to be hung from a tree or dragged behind cars. I think that is radical and in no way shape or form do I condone people that do that. I don't think that they should have equal rights under our constitution though. Thomas Jefferson would be rolling in his grave. I have plenty of gay friends, mostly lesbians, but I tell them to their faces that. Some agree, some don't. I am telling you here and now though that its a moot point. The Supreme Court nor the US Senate is going to hear cases dealing with this because they can't handle the publicity. Until there is a panel of strict reconstructions (rulling it illegal) or strong reformists (ruling it legal), it will never change. So while Massuchusets gives homosexual couples the same rights under their state laws, here in good ol' NC, they are prohibited.

Wes

[Massive Lee]

Way beyond the religious, moral and cultural aspect of marriage (gay or heterosexual), the reason that guided the gay movement to push the recognition of gay marriage was purely a legal one. A gay couple may have been together for 30 years, when one of the "spouse" dies, the other has absolutely no right or claim. Insurance companies did not recognize those partners in life. Pension plans don't recognize it. I don't think it is right. Just my personal point of view.

In regard of the issue of the "sphincter" as stated earlier by a member, I kinda believe that nowadays it is used by as many heterosexuals as it is used by homosexuals. In some countries, it is a natural way of birth regulation. In other countires, a woman can be insulted if you refuse this "port on entrance". and in other countries, women only do it because heterosexual men want it.

[Fidhle007]

that was rude. :down:
this discussion has nothing to do with his girlfriend

Thanks, but it's alright. The girl in question is not, never has been, and probably never will be my girlfriend. She is a married friend of mine who, for better or for worse, posed semi-nude with her E34 and posted the pics on this site. R3v has never quite recovered and Asubimmer is still nursing his blue balls...

[Purdue89E30]

OK, in my view, marriage is about love (and gay people can love), sex (gay people can have sex) and CHILDREN, (gay people can't breed) but gay people can adopt, but then those boys or girls would have a "not normal" role model.

I don't think of marriage as a way to get tax rebates, and let's say that taking the biblical issue out of the question, there's nature, unless a lesbian can get another lesbian pregnant, or a homosexual male can produce a rectal pregnancy in another male, i think NATURE is against it also.

That sphincter in particular is meant for something completely different to what gays use it for.

just my

You are aware that there are legally married heterosexual couples who choose not to have kids right? Isn't that a pretty big hole in the "Marriage exists to protect children" arguement?

Besides I saw an Arnold Schwartzenegger movie where a dude got preggers so ya never know what could happen.

[decay]

its not funny. its sad.

well cheer up buddy, cuz it wasn't true to begin with.

My input says, if they want to have the union of a marriage, which our argument says is based upon the idea of governmental acceptance and supposed "tax cuts"...let them! BUT keep it out of the church, if not we've seen it immediately create controversy.

agree. and while we're at it let's keep the church out of the government as well. if not for that crowd, this wouldn't be a "hot-button" issue in the first place. attempting to legislate morality is also a slippery slope, and at the bottom you find examples like Sharia law in muslim countries.

[s0urce]

Not necessarily towards you, but towards anyone who debates this:

WHO THE FUCK CARES

Because you got to this thread way before I did. QFT

[asubimmer]

cry about it, he asked for it

he even agreed cause he knows how much of a pimp hoff is

[*R*]

he gets more women than your fat bitch chasin dumbass (/topless e34 ;) ) could ever hope for

that was rude. :down:
this discussion has nothing to do with his girlfriend

[Fidhle007]

he gets more women than your fat bitch chasin dumbass (/topless e34 ;) ) could ever hope for

QFT

[asubimmer]

Whatever you say Mr. Hasselhoff...

he gets more women than your fat bitch chasin dumbass (/topless e34 ;) ) could ever hope for

[Bill-B]

40 to 31, you guys are fags...

+1

[Fidhle007]

40 to 31, you guys are fags...

Whatever you say Mr. Hasselhoff...

[*R*]

40 to 31, you guys are fags...

Im sorry we support the rights of fellow human beings.

[joshh]

Sure, let them get married......at least it would shut them the fuck up.

Religion is really the problem here. No religion and few people would actually give flying fuck.

[asubimmer]

40 to 31, you guys are fags...