Same Sex Marriages?

[orchis]

The war of the roses was Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner with Danny De Vito being the lawyer.

Ruthless People was with Danny De Vito and Bette Midler.

[Deadcert]

I actually find the gay forum offensive and I personally do not care what these people get up to in there own homes, but do we have to belittle a great forum for the sake of a few non religious people? If you say anything even in gest you get labelled homophobic, which I aint as I am not scared of them, I just think it is a sickness that is becoming mainstream because of a few minoritys with power in government.

Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, sorry but it is against everything that is moral. We are on this earth to breed naturally and what do these types of people do to make that happen - nothing!

You find the gay forum offensive. Then don't bloody read it.

Personally you show yourself to be blinded by ignorance.

Shame on you.

[Deadcert]

The biggest problem with the gay marriage issue here in the states is semantics.  The word marriage has two meanings. First, there is the legal contact between two people, recognized by the state, and verified by the issue of a license.  Second, there is the religious sacrament between two people and God, recognized by a church.

No law allowing gay marriage can ever change the second meaning against the will of the church. It's that good old separation gig.

The first meaning is what is up for debate. But here's the key point: a gay marriage, recognized by the state, verified by a license, has to be recognized by the Federal government as well. That means access to Social Security benefits for the spouse, the right to make medical decisions for the spouse when the spouse is unable, Income tax penalties or benefits, etc.  A so called "civil union" confers many fewer benefits, like possibly the right to be on the spouse's medical insurance, and is not recognized by another state or the Federal government. That's why the push for gay *marriage* rather than civil unions. They aren't even close to being the same thing legally. I think most people believe that a civil union would carry the same benefits as marriage but without the church involvement.  I know I did until I did my research into the issue.

So there it is. I see it as a moot question, anyway.  I expect a Supreme Court decision affirming the right to gay marriage no matter what the religious right does to prevent it.  It's discrimination based on sexual preference, which has already been determined to be unconstitutional.

so is paedophilia determined to be unconstituonal by your thought process, should that be legal to?

Only in America!

Great, So now you make a suggestion of a link between gays and paedohiles.

What a tosser!

[Deadcert]

How many gay animals do you see on this planet?

Now go and jump on your soap box somewhere else, you have no educated answer to this as there is none. 

Without looking it up, dogs, sheep, goats, penguins and several others engage in homosexual acts. But I don't think they get married.

If all of the people on this planet were gay we would be extinct without scientific help.......... tell me that is not so?

I noticed you left this one out!

Check and post your findings on gay animals , Ill be waiting here for you

I left out your first question because that is obvious. If the gene that cause homosexual behaviour would spread to all humans or animals of a certain species of course they would go extinct. But how would that happen?

This genetic defect affects a small percentage of the population (humans or animals) and there is nothing that indicates that it is 'spreading'.

I already told you, dogs, sheep, goats and penguins are the ones I know about that engage in homosexual acts. I am sure there are others but I won't waste time on looking it up.

So now it is a defect? So us straight people have the responsibilty to breed, while the gay community stand by for us and get ridiculous rights?

In your thought process - "it is a defect", why then shouldnt we be spending money on medicine to help these people?, instead of supporting them and making it fashionable to kids of today.

Was Aids started by homosexual behavour?

I have never seen my dog having anal intercourse with another male or have I ever heard of that before. If you have a scientific link to it, it would put it to rest now wouldnt it? waste your time and prove me wrong, I am open to scientific facts, but your word doesnt mean a thing.

Aids started in Africa and spread becuase of anal sex between hetrosexuals.

Simple.

[Deadcert]

I still don't see what the problem is.

Are you afraid of the plannet running out of people because we all become homosexual?

Without glib or snide comments or personal attacks, can those that disagree so strongly with Gay marraige, what specifically is the concern?

Is it religious? If so, then so are many other things. Alchohol if you are Muslim. Sex before marriage if you are Christian. Divorce and contraceptives if you are Catholic. Eating prok if you are Jewish or Muslim. Eating beef if you are Hindu. I could go on forever perhaps.

Is it the thought of the sexual act? If so, then how is marriage going to make a difference. Do unmarried gay couple not have sex at the moment?

Is it the raising children angle? If so, then marriage also does not make a difference. They can not biologically mate. They can adopt, but have the same checks by the agency/state that every adopting couple have. So this can be controlled separately as an issue. They can be impregnated if they are female (artificially or otherwise), but they can happen now too.

You see, whatever angle I see it from, I can find no logical reasoned argument against it other than "Its wrong, 'cos the bible says it is". Anyone fancy stoning an adulterer (I'll give you my ex-wife's address  ).

These sort of questions always get heated and personal, but no one ever throws in reasoned arguement - "never met a gay Kangaroo, so it ain't right for humans either!".

What I don't like about gay marriage is that it bascically puts an official stamp of approval on a relationship which I consider anatural and unproductive.

I dont buy this defective gene theory either.

Quite frankly who gives a ###### what you think.

[Tornado]

I still don't see what the problem is.

Are you afraid of the plannet running out of people because we all become homosexual?

Without glib or snide comments or personal attacks, can those that disagree so strongly with Gay marraige, what specifically is the concern?

Is it religious? If so, then so are many other things. Alchohol if you are Muslim. Sex before marriage if you are Christian. Divorce and contraceptives if you are Catholic. Eating prok if you are Jewish or Muslim. Eating beef if you are Hindu. I could go on forever perhaps.

Is it the thought of the sexual act? If so, then how is marriage going to make a difference. Do unmarried gay couple not have sex at the moment?

Is it the raising children angle? If so, then marriage also does not make a difference. They can not biologically mate. They can adopt, but have the same checks by the agency/state that every adopting couple have. So this can be controlled separately as an issue. They can be impregnated if they are female (artificially or otherwise), but they can happen now too.

You see, whatever angle I see it from, I can find no logical reasoned argument against it other than "Its wrong, 'cos the bible says it is". Anyone fancy stoning an adulterer (I'll give you my ex-wife's address  ).

These sort of questions always get heated and personal, but no one ever throws in reasoned arguement - "never met a gay Kangaroo, so it ain't right for humans either!".

What I don't like about gay marriage is that it bascically puts an official stamp of approval on a relationship which I consider anatural and unproductive.

I dont buy this defective gene theory either.

Quite frankly who gives a ###### what you think.

You seem to as you directed 4 posts at me

alright sweet heart, go and have a valium, cuddle up to your partner and refer to the majority of the posts on this thread. Your raving like a bitch!

[Tornado]

The biggest problem with the gay marriage issue here in the states is semantics.  The word marriage has two meanings. First, there is the legal contact between two people, recognized by the state, and verified by the issue of a license.  Second, there is the religious sacrament between two people and God, recognized by a church.

No law allowing gay marriage can ever change the second meaning against the will of the church. It's that good old separation gig.

The first meaning is what is up for debate. But here's the key point: a gay marriage, recognized by the state, verified by a license, has to be recognized by the Federal government as well. That means access to Social Security benefits for the spouse, the right to make medical decisions for the spouse when the spouse is unable, Income tax penalties or benefits, etc.  A so called "civil union" confers many fewer benefits, like possibly the right to be on the spouse's medical insurance, and is not recognized by another state or the Federal government. That's why the push for gay *marriage* rather than civil unions. They aren't even close to being the same thing legally. I think most people believe that a civil union would carry the same benefits as marriage but without the church involvement.  I know I did until I did my research into the issue.

So there it is. I see it as a moot question, anyway.  I expect a Supreme Court decision affirming the right to gay marriage no matter what the religious right does to prevent it.  It's discrimination based on sexual preference, which has already been determined to be unconstitutional.

so is paedophilia determined to be unconstituonal by your thought process, should that be legal to?

Only in America!

Great, So now you make a suggestion of a link between gays and paedohiles.

What a tosser!

re read the thread sweetness , you have come in half cocked

[Deadcert]

Just hate uniformed views and there seem to be plenty on this thread.

I agree that the institution of marriage is probably not the right form for any legal commitment between gay couples, but equality demands that something be done to address the issue. After all gay people contribute equally to society in the form of taxes, which go to pay for the education of other peoples children, They should expect fairness and equality in all aspects of life.

I have to laugh how the idea of gay marriage has rattled so many cages and shown somes sections of society up for the bigots they are.

[Ijustwannateach]

In general I'm in favor of more rights for us anywhere- but I wonder if getting fully "legimitized" might also be painting us into a bourgeouis corner as well? It seems that although our rights are now limited our social flexibility is also somewhat greater than that of straights. Would hate to be trapped in a "man, man, house, dog, and 2.2 kids" kind of world.

"Steven"

[Dickie]

Just hate uniformed views and there seem to be plenty on this thread.

I agree that the institution of marriage is probably not the right form for any legal commitment between gay couples, but equality demands that something be done to address the issue. After all gay people contribute equally to society in the form of taxes, which go to pay for the education of other peoples children, They should expect fairness and equality in all aspects of life.

I have to laugh how the idea of gay marriage has rattled so many cages and shown somes sections of society up for the bigots they are.

We're not equal. Straight unions bear fruit, gay ones don't. Marriage was invented to stop people from naturally drifting apart and leaving any children more vulnerable than otherwise. Nothing can be done to address this non-issue.

[davethailand]

Just hate uniformed views and there seem to be plenty on this thread.

I agree that the institution of marriage is probably not the right form for any legal commitment between gay couples, but equality demands that something be done to address the issue. After all gay people contribute equally to society in the form of taxes, which go to pay for the education of other peoples children, They should expect fairness and equality in all aspects of life.

I have to laugh how the idea of gay marriage has rattled so many cages and shown somes sections of society up for the bigots they are.

We're not equal. Straight unions bear fruit, gay ones don't. Marriage was invented to stop people from naturally drifting apart and leaving any children more vulnerable than otherwise. Nothing can be done to address this non-issue.

hear hear

[Ijustwannateach]

Just hate uniformed views and there seem to be plenty on this thread.

I agree that the institution of marriage is probably not the right form for any legal commitment between gay couples, but equality demands that something be done to address the issue. After all gay people contribute equally to society in the form of taxes, which go to pay for the education of other peoples children, They should expect fairness and equality in all aspects of life.

I have to laugh how the idea of gay marriage has rattled so many cages and shown somes sections of society up for the bigots they are.

We're not equal. Straight unions bear fruit, gay ones don't. Marriage was invented to stop people from naturally drifting apart and leaving any children more vulnerable than otherwise. Nothing can be done to address this non-issue.

Yeah, but if gays were fully legally endowed (so to speak) we could adopt a measure of those parentless orphans in the world...

"Steven"

[ProThaiExpat]

If we are back to the "old saw" marriage's purpose is procreation, just limit marriage to fertile couples who must have children within a reasonable time of their marriage or they must be denied the "marriage right".!!

If we are discussing the rationale for marriage as that which provides stable homes for children, we only need to look at the divorce rate, parental child abuse rate and runaway problem to judge heterosexual marriage as a failure in this regard.

Those who have advanced the notion that there is no rational reason to deny same-sex couples the right to a civil union/marriage have got it right, as the Massachusetts Supreme Court spelled out in such a rationale way. Other courts will follow. Religionists are apoplectic and are using flaming rhetoric in hopes of herding their flocks into voting for constitutional ammendments in the States to prevent the inevitable. Keep in mind that there were more than half the states that had laws against interracial marriage and more than 80% of the population were against it, when the U.S. Surpreme Court finally (17 years after Califronia)

ruled it unconstitutional.

Now look at what the churches and religionists have to say about interracial marriage. Not a peep. So what happend to all their rhetoric on the horrors that would beset mankind should races itermarry when society defies "God's Will" etc. etc. etc.

Ignorance, bigotry and denial of civil rights flourishes in any society that is moving to the right politically as the U.S. under George Bush is doing and as Germany did under Hitler, and Iraq did under Sadam and as any society does under dictatorship or clerical rule.

[Ijustwannateach]

Sadly, there are not a few places in the U.S. where interracial marriages are still tacitly forbidden... at least, you'd have a pretty hot time living in those places if you (as an intermarried partner) chose to. One of the reasons I *don't* live there anymore!

"Steven"

[Dickie]

If we are back to the "old saw" marriage's purpose is procreation, just limit marriage to fertile couples who must have children within a reasonable time of their marriage or they must be denied the "marriage right".!!

If we are discussing the rationale for marriage as that which provides stable homes for children, we only need to look at the divorce rate, parental child abuse rate and runaway problem to judge heterosexual marriage as a failure in this regard.

Those who have advanced the notion that there is no rational reason to deny same-sex couples the right to a civil union/marriage have got it right, as the Massachusetts Supreme Court spelled out in such a rationale way.  Other courts will follow.  Religionists are apoplectic and are using  flaming rhetoric in hopes of herding their flocks into voting for constitutional ammendments in the States to prevent the inevitable.  Keep in mind that there were more than half the states that had laws against interracial marriage and more than 80% of the population were against it, when the U.S. Surpreme Court finally (17 years after Califronia)

ruled it unconstitutional.

Now look at what the churches and religionists have to say about interracial marriage.  Not a peep.  So what happend to all their rhetoric on the horrors that would beset mankind should races itermarry when society defies "God's Will" etc. etc. etc. 

Ignorance, bigotry and denial of civil rights flourishes in any society that is moving to the right politically as the U.S. under George Bush is doing and as Germany did under Hitler, and Iraq did under Sadam and as any society does under dictatorship or clerical rule.

Eh? We were discussing equality issues, not 'old saw' stuff, nor religious fanaticism. As for failed marriages, not surprising when the left-sponsored degradation of its status in society has made it less of a necessity and more of an accessory.

If we are discussing the rationale for marriage as that which provides stable homes for children, we only need to look at the divorce rate, parental child abuse rate and runaway problem to judge heterosexual marriage as a failure in this regard.

A small percentage of problem families renders the whole thing a failure? Sounds like you're grasping at straws here. Mind you, I don't know what it's like in the US.

Those who have advanced the notion that there is no rational reason to deny same-sex couples the right to a civil union/marriage have got it right, as the Massachusetts Supreme Court spelled out in such a rationale way.

Why get married? To get the same advantages as other couples? So it's not about love or showing commitment to family.

Hitler's Germany was a left-wing nightmare and not right-wing as the left has so successfully protrayed it. So was Stalin's Russia and I noted no mention there. I think you're a bit of a left-wing fanatic wishing to squash anything that remotely smells of inequality. Face facts: we're not equal and nothing you can do will make us equal, contrary to any left-aligned philosophy to which you may subscribe.

[Ijustwannateach]

Umm... Hitler was left wing from exactly what point of view??

I do know that pre-fascist Germany was one of the most socially liberal states of the 20th century, with colonies of gay people living together in peace. Hitler's "left wing [so you say]" state sent them off to be liquidated.

"Steven"

[Tornado]

I have to laugh how the idea of gay marriage has rattled so many cages and shown somes sections of society up for the bigots they are.

reread your own threads.

I think it sick and thats my view, live with it!

[Dickie]

Umm...  Hitler was left wing from exactly what point of view??

I do know that pre-fascist Germany was one of the most socially liberal states of the 20th century, with colonies of gay people living together in peace.  Hitler's "left wing [so you say]" state sent them off to be liquidated.

"Steven"

Left wing thinks that people should subsume their lives to the state for the good of all.

Hitler definitely believed that everyone should live for the greater good of Germany. If that's not left wing, what is?

Germany was never fascist, it was left wing gone to its ultimate extreme: everyone being the same, believing the same and doing the same.

Point to note: Hitler only wanted killed those he believed to not be German, regardless of the truth (he was mad, after all). Stalin (wonder why lefties never mention him?) deliberately had slaughtered millions of his own people.

[Ijustwannateach]

Saying that Hitler was left wing as long as you weren't gay, Jewish, Gypsy, black, handicapped, from the "wrong" religion, brown-haired or otherwise "deviant" seems to be stretching a point to me.

And saying that Stalin proves left-wing ideology wrong is no less knocking down a straw man than saying that Hitler proves right-wing ideology wrong. They're both extreme examples of systems poorly implemented mainly in order to acquire power by ruthless dictators, and neither should be taken seriously as arguments against the benefits of particular policies actually meant for the good of a people.

By your view, was Hobbes, for saying that government exists to prevent us all from ripping each other apart in a state of nature, right wing or left wing?

In any case, this doesn't seem to be on topic- if you'd like to start an economic discussion thread in one of the other forums, I'll happily follow you there.

Getting back on topic, I agree that for a government to be controlling the licensing of marriages AT ALL is intrusive, gay OR straight- so would you agree that we can simply drop all this "licensed marriage" nonsense for straights too and the legal rights/responsibilities that come with it, and straight folks and gay will be on a level playing field with regard to government? Or do you think we gays should have the "benefits" of government-licensed intrusion in our lives as well?

"Steven"

[peterf1066]

Dear Tornado

This is the Gay Forum!

I would suggest that if you do not like the heat you get out of the kitchen.

Gays in this Forum are not interfering with the straight persons in the other Forums.

So please keep your bigoted names to yourself.

It is unfortunate that in the States you have never managed to pass by , the Puritan attitude of your forbears!

We are here to stay, whether I want to get married or not( and by the way that is not possible in my country) I should be entitled to to such legal benefits for example superannuation, sharing leave enttlements etc with my lover.

If I am denied that, that is what gay people are really p...... off with, the straight types denying benefits that you take for granted.

Have fun in the other forum

Pedroau

[Dickie]

And saying that Stalin proves left-wing ideology wrong is no less knocking down a straw man than saying that Hitler proves right-wing ideology wrong.

I didn't, I said Hitler was left-wing so he and Stalin both prove that controlling the masses can only be done by exterminating those who 'don't fit the mould'.

[davethailand]

Dear Tornado

This is the Gay Forum!

I would suggest that if you do not like the heat you get out of the kitchen.

Gays in this Forum are not interfering with the straight persons in the other Forums.

So please keep your bigoted names to yourself.

It is unfortunate that in the States you have never managed to pass by , the Puritan attitude of your forbears!

We are here to stay, whether I want to get married or not( and by the way that is not possible in my country) I should be entitled to to such legal benefits for example superannuation, sharing leave enttlements etc with my lover.

If I am denied that, that is what gay people are really p...... off with, the straight types denying benefits that you take for granted.

Have fun in the other forum

Pedroau

[bkk barney]

i dont think i have anything against gays, its not something i have put a lot of thought into, but to allow gays same sex marriages is a disgrace.

marriage is a religous thingy, and is something i personally would never do with my gal friend, now as there are still religions that ban same sex marriages, i think they maybe right, i mean who wants to see pics of two obese americans males marrying each other, yep its pretty sick.

so i for one will vote against these sickoes

[bkk barney]

and wots happened to my avatar???

[Ijustwannateach]

Nice try, Dirtydog.

Everyone please ignore the troll, as cute as his doggie avatar is. He's just trying to get a rise out of us- I don't think he cares about gay political issues one way or another. Hey, DD, get yourself back to the Nightlife forum and talk about how you'd like to exterminate some more orphans!

"Steven"

[Deadcert]

I have to laugh how the idea of gay marriage has rattled so many cages and shown somes sections of society up for the bigots they are.

reread your own threads.

I think it sick and thats my view, live with it!

Sick on what grounds. That people want equal rights., surely not.

Talk about rattling cages, yours seems to be the most rattled, enough for you to post in a section that obviously you have no respect for.

Oh well. Not everyone is capable of seeing both sides of an argument.

[Deadcert]

i dont think i have anything against gays, its not something i have put a lot of thought into, but to allow gays same sex marriages is a disgrace.

marriage is a religous thingy, and is something i personally would never do with my gal friend, now as there are still religions that ban same sex marriages, i think they maybe right, i mean who wants to see pics of two obese americans males marrying each other, yep its pretty sick.

so i for one will vote against these sickoes

So would it be ok if both parties were goodlooking. What a load of twaddle, by your own reasoning more than half the thai/european girl/boy relationships would not make the grade.

There is nothing wrong or sick about trying to achieve equality in the eyes of the law. It will happen and the religious bigots will choke on their fury, so much for love and understanding.

Personally I am happy with a legal recognition of same sex partnerships, the god squad can keep their ceromonies along with their narrow minded views and thier failed marriges.

[Deadcert]

Funny too that there are so many people that have obviously chosen Thailand as their home and yet have learnt nothing form the understanding Thai people.

Probabaly just here for the sex industry. Shame really.

[Zappadappa]

Everyone should have the right to freedom of love between adults and to marriage regardless of their partners sex!

If that makes you sick then it's obviously none of your business to interfere with other peoples personal lives and you can stop trying to force your prejudice onto others!

[peekint]

I agree with bluecat.

I'm for changing the legal structure so that if a marriage doesn't produce children within 18 months, then the marriage is annulled.

Also, all candidates for marriage should have fertility tests, or the license isn't issued.

Let's keep to the basics and put marriage back to what gawd meant it to be.

Marriage for me is for children.

It helps them.

I gives them stability and recognition.

Hopefully.

And help them grow up into " balanced" adults.

Same sex marriage does not achieve that.

At least, I do not think so.

But OK, I'm probably biased on the question,...