Programming C, C++, Java, PHP, Ruby, Turing, VB
Computer Science Canada 
Programming C, C++, Java, PHP, Ruby, Turing, VB  

Username:   Password: 
 RegisterRegister   
 G A Y Marriage
Index -> Off Topic
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
View previous topic Printable versionDownload TopicSubscribe to this topicPrivate MessagesRefresh page View next topic

Darkness is
(No ending time set)
Totally awesome
7%
 7%  [ 1 ]
Gnarly
42%
 42%  [ 6 ]
Tubular
28%
 28%  [ 4 ]
Smokin'
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Saweeet!
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Rockin'
7%
 7%  [ 1 ]
Kick ass!
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Mondo cool!
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
l33t
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Psychadelic baby
14%
 14%  [ 2 ]
Total Votes : 14

Author Message
Martin




PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 1:24 am   Post subject: G A Y Marriage

I got in an arguement about this with someone today. What are your opinions on the topic?
Sponsor
Sponsor
Sponsor
sponsor
Mazer




PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 6:42 am   Post subject: (No subject)

Haha. I was at work once when someone said something along the lines of "Did you hear? Same sex marriages are legal now."
I was about to reply with my standard derogatory "Man, that's so gay" comment until I realised how redundant it would be.

But still... well, I'm sure you know where I stand (far away from naoki).
templest




PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 10:22 am   Post subject: (No subject)

LOL...

That just made my day. Very Happy
SuperGenius




PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 12:55 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

I see the point that the gay rights people are trying to make... but if we concede to it then what will happen if something like a man-boy love group comes out and demands rights too? Where do we draw the line of acceptability?
Dan




PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 3:12 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

I bleivle they should have the same rights to mary as any one eltes. If the churchs dont like it, good for them. they just dont have to mary them in there carch, the main debate is about recozing the marage from the point of the goverment.

Quote:

but if we concede to it then what will happen if something like a man-boy love group comes out and demands rights too? Where do we draw the line of acceptability?


That is the dumested thing i have ever hured, you are comapering gay marage to some petiafile thing wtich has nothing to do with each other. In maryage there is an agement from both sides to form a legal union, i dont see how you get petialfie out of that, that is like saying b/c normal margaes are alowed man-girl love groups could come out and demand rights, witch makes no scecen.
Computer Science Canada Help with programming in C, C++, Java, PHP, Ruby, Turing, VB and more!
rizzix




PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 3:19 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

actually the whole debate is not around concept but more around the word marriage. marriage has a very specific and special meaning in the church. the church argues to call it a union or something ,, anything instead of marriage. cuz calling it marriage is just mocking the church


and i agree it dosent make sense. LOL
Dan




PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 3:30 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

While i say screw what the cruch whonts/thinks this should be about the deftion of marriage in trems of goverment and legal issues. The cruchs can be as perguisted as they whont but they should keep it in the confies of there curch.

This whould not even be an isues if the curch side somting like "black" poleop could not get maried, poleop whould not alow it and it whould be unthinkable for them to come up with somting like that. The curch (and some other crazy poleop) just needed a new gorup that is not as visable to mess with so they picked gays. (no office to black poleop intend just using it as an example)
Computer Science Canada Help with programming in C, C++, Java, PHP, Ruby, Turing, VB and more!
SuperGenius




PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 7:17 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

I resent you dumping on my opinion Dan, because I feel that it is a valid point. I was in no way, shape or form saying that homosexuals as a group are deviant pedofiles. What i meant to convey was that any change in law should be carefully considered, beacuse it could set a dangerous precedent.
Dauntless




PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 7:38 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

Marriage is generally seen as a institution created by religion as a formal binding of man and woman. For the purposes of reproduction (no sex til after marriage). Nowadays, marriage entitles tax breaks and stuff, I think.

So, we can argue against marriage from a couple ways;
1) Marriage is typically to reproduce. No sex until marriage. If a man and a man can marry to not reproduce, ditto for a woman and a woman, ditto for a man and a machine or a man and a dog. Yeah, nowadays with science you can reproduce with a man and a man's genes, and vice versa, but in that case, the only reason you're getting married is to a) be recognized as a lifelong relationship, b) for tax breaks.

Which brings us to
2) If gays can get married people tax breaks for being married even if they're not gonna have children, why not just give them married people tax breaks without them getting married. Why not just take away married people tax breaks; I'm sure that's not why people get married anyways.

And, if they just want to be recognized as life partners,
3) Why not create a new designation rather than marriage? An agnostic gay marriage. Since marriage is heterosexual, why not make it some new catchphrase that the press will think up. Maybe linkage. So gay people get linked, straight people get married.


On the other side of the ball, we can argue that
1) Gay couples may not themselves be able to reproduce without science, but then again neither do some straight couples. Also, being unable to reproduce, they may decide to adopt some children that need adopting.

Opposing that, we may say that gay people will raise their kids all messed up, and suddenly we'll be a nation of gay people.

Conversely, even unmarried gay people can adopt.

I just argued it out as much as I could, so people don't cover stuff that's already obvious and covered.
Dan




PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 10:18 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

Dauntless wrote:

1) Marriage is typtically to reproduce. No sex until marriage. If a man and a man can marry to not reproduce, ditto for a woman and a woman, ditto for a man and a machine or a man and a dog. Yeah, nowadays with science you can reproduce with a man and a man's genes, and vice versa, but in that case, the only reason you're getting married is to a) be recognized as a lifelong relationship, b) for tax breaks.


then should poleop who all ready have childer not be alowed to mary or poleop who do not plan on having kidds?

Quote:

2) If ***s can married people tax breaks for being married even if they're not gonna have children, why not just give them married people tax breaks without getting married. Why not just take away married people tax breaks; I'm sure that's not why people get married anyways.


i blive your taxs go up and not down when u marrie, not a tax break......

Quote:

And, if they just want to be recognized as life partners,
3) Why not create a new designation rather than marriage? An agnostic *** marriage. Since marriage is heterosexual, why not make it some new catchphrase that the press will think up. Maybe linkage. So *** people get linked, straight people get married.


then why not recalsife what a person is my race? so only white poleop are poleop and others are some other designation?

it just dose not work like that, this is not the curchs desion it is marriage in the eyes of the govement not what evere god you belive or do not belvie in.

Quote:

Opposing that, we may say that *** people will raise their kids all messed up, and suddenly we'll be a nation of *** people.


that is just wrong what u are saying there, by your reasing there, there should be no gay poleop b/c all the parenets where starti. There is no evidence that says gay poleop rases gay kids or starite parsnts raise startie kids.
Computer Science Canada Help with programming in C, C++, Java, PHP, Ruby, Turing, VB and more!
valor




PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 10:35 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

gay marriage is just wrong actually it is disgusting wrong....
jonos




PostPosted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 10:54 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

I agree with gay unions, but not gay marriage - for religious reasons.

And please, stop it with this "gay rights" thing, because gay people have all the same rights as heterosexual people do - can heterosexuals marry people of the same sex? No, so we all don't have that right.

And Dauntless is right - calling a gay union a marriage IS an insult to the church. Where do you think the concept of marriage came from? I also don't think that a party in power or the courts should settle this. This is something that will affect all Canadians and will have a great impact on our society, so I think that Canadians should decide this with a referendum (or at least a Commons vote). Many people in support of same-sex marriage don't agree with this because they know that most Canadians don't agree with it.

Many people don't agree with it also for non-religious reasons. One could compare it to common-law marriage when it first began to become generally accepted by society. Now, common law marriage has helped raise the divorce rate, the number of single parents, family abuse, etc. This happened because society did not know how great an impact common law marriage would make. It is the same thing with gay marriage. This could be the deciding factor in whether humans are to survive. It sure doesn't help an already declining birth rate.

Gay people have been living together for a long time, but to want marriage is just an insult to traditional institutions and the church. People in support of it should not go and slander marriage just for "equality". They should call it something else. And marriage is not just a word - it's a concept, and that also should not be changed.

This has nothing to do with homophobia, so you left-wing zealots can stop with that because it's not appreciated.
Catalyst




PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:18 am   Post subject: (No subject)

call it whatever you like, but it boils down to receiving the same rights and privileges that a heterosexual couple (married) would receive
Martin




PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 12:36 am   Post subject: (No subject)

This post was worth starting just to see Dan's various interpretations on the spelling of the word 'church.'

As far as gay marriage goes, it is about rights, not about whether or not it is an insult to the church. We cannot rule our society based on the beliefs of a single religion, however dominant it is in our society.

When a couple gets married, they gain rights because of it. I'm not sure what they are, but they are definately there. It does not have to be a marriage through the church.

Posted Image, might have been reduced in size. Click Image to view fullscreen.

Quote:
There's this illusion that homosexuals have sex and heterosexuals fall in love. That's completely untrue. Everybody wants to be loved.
~Boy George

I like my beers cold and my homosexuals flaming!
~Homer Simpson
jonos




PostPosted: Tue Jun 22, 2004 11:54 pm   Post subject: (No subject)

Our society should not be based on one religion, yes, but it is not. Almost all religions disagree with it, and the Christian ones that do support it are losing more than half their members because of it. Give them equality, but not a marriage. That is an insult and debasement of the traditional concept of marriage started by the church. Call it a union and most would be happy, but not a marriage. Just because some of you may not believe in it, doesn't mean that you can totally disregard it - as Dan has been saying to me about communism and whatnot.

Calling a gay union marriage is like calling a first person shooter a third person shooter.
Display posts from previous:   
   Index -> Off Topic
View previous topic Tell A FriendPrintable versionDownload TopicSubscribe to this topicPrivate MessagesRefresh page View next topic

Page 1 of 6  [ 79 Posts ]
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Jump to:   


Style:  
Search: