Quote from Joentjuh

Please don't take this the wrong way, it's meant as advise not critique.

First of all, don't say something controversial followed by something like "but I don't really care". What was the point then?

Secondly, there is a difference between being forced, and given the choice.
Force: being ...

obviously the point was to piss out people that would latter respond facts with Opinions...

MISSION ACCOMPLISH!

didn't you read my first post?, i clearly stated i just write that out of been a douche, and again everything that i said can be proven and that is pretty much it, keep on going i'm out here.

(i also was expecting people to try and "fish" something to discuss (that is a strawman fallacy btw), also accomplish)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYMjXucTFaM

Quote from RattixEmpire

Hey, had the debate. It was for WA Youth Parliament. 58 people debated on the issue of legalising homosexual marriage, everyone spoke, when it came time to vote, four people were against it and ten people abstained, the remaining 44 were for the motion. A great day for one sided debating and the fall of democracy, tee he he.

♥

Love,
Pika.

...

Well, in time, it'll be legal (once the traditionalists die off).

[img]https://i.imgur.com/cWeUK2w.png[/img]

Quote from LawX

You are like the dense main character in a shoujo manga.

Quote from Crenshinibon

And you will murder someone one day, pika. If you're my daughter.

If you want the two cents of some random chick on the internet then here it's goes.

Homosexual Marriage should totally be allowed. If someone is in love with another human being then go ahead. Let them BE happy. Let them have their happily ever after.I don't see how this is hurting anyone. It's not my place to judge who should and shouldn't be married. If I fall in love with in a another women and I want to be with her for the rest of my life and I should be able to go in one knee and ask her to spend the rest of our time loving and supporting each other.
I really still don't see why people are against it.

It's me who is in love and not you.
Are you going to be there if my lady need to be cheered up from a rough day from work, telling her tomorrow is a new day? So you capture every memory we spend together? Like the time when we made attempted pancakes from starch in the evening. But we screwed up so badly that we ended ordering takeout instead? Huh, no? Oh yeah you weren't there. But were you there that time when she said that funny line when we were in bed? So why are you there when I drop down on both knees and beg her to spend the rest of my life with? Why are you blocking my view of her walking down with her beautiful dress that i want to take off and claim her as mine. I want to see the look on her face, as she walks steadily down the isle between the people we care for. because she knows that one wrong step, she might go viral on youtube. But we'd laugh and I pick her up as she has done for me countless time. But wait. Your there. Why? Standing infront of us and say "NO". Again. Im head over heals for the her. and not you.

_> My apologies, sorry I went off into a creative tangent. My point is many of us are looking for someone to be with. When you do find that special person, those inmate moment are yours. It doesn't matter on the gender, race or religion. The whole world won't be watching your every move.

Personally I think it's an issue with the terms used. Marriage should remain at the churches discretion since it is defined as a "Union of a man and woman in the eyes of God". In this respect I would be against it because it means the church and the state are becoming more entwined rather than separate.

BUT I am all for the idea of civil partnerships which can be taken by anyone, I personally am straight but an athiest and would rather have a civil partnership than a marriage. The key problem I think is the stigma around civil partnership and the fact that marriage is currently the accepted term.

18 - England (If this is even still useful to you)

It against GOD will, So I'm against it and only human who doesn't believe in GOD will act like this. Only people who doesn't have GOD in his/her heart will marry with the same gender.

Polygamy better than this homosexual marriage.

If you want this happen, bring the line in torah, bible, Al-Quran or any high religion book that allow this kind of act. >:-( human is madness and arrogant, thinking they are better than GOD.

Zehahahaha 🤣

Marriage was around LONG before the bible. It is not the institute or property of religion. Anyone who tells you otherwise is full of shit.

Christianity did not invent it. Though it has probably tried to patent it.

Anyone should be able to marry. It is, however, the church's discretion who they let get married within their facilities. Not that that really matters.

Im not going to troll you and make fun of something believe in. But why?
I thought God love everyone of his children right? But why in this case homosexuals are worst then satan himself? In all religion there are people who pick and choose on what they believe in right? So why is acceptable to spread hate toward the LGBT community but you think you going to heaven after doing horrible things to homosexual? What kind of lesson are you learning from that? You going to get reward after hurting someone who is a bit different then you according what a book says?

I'm sick of this discussion. Two adult people are giving their consent to something that does absolutely no harm to anyone else. The fact that there is an issue with it is simply ridiculous.

And answer me this, religious fanatics (as I assume ordinary believers are more reasonable), if homosexuals are condemned by God, but their orientation is also decided by Him, doesn't this make him a psychopath who enjoys tormenting people for no real reason?

I have nothing about Christianity itself as long as you keep it reasonable. IMO advocating anything that promotes phobias and discrimination should be illegal. How is it different from satanistic sects and cults? Hardly at all, if you ask me.

My views on gay marriage varies depending on what sort of marriage were talking about. I have no problems at all with a marriage where no religion is involved (not sure what you would call it but i know that you can get married by going to a certain building and then each of you sign a paper.) I'm totally okay with that and believe that is a right.
However.. I don't think we have any right to decide if the wedding is religious (like if the wedding is in a church). Religion is based on rules and belief in certain things which whatever the government says schouldn't have any say in how they do things as long as it doesn't hurt or kill people.

Therefore i think that whether or not homosexuals can get married in a church with a priest or everything is something the church schould decide.

Frankly i'm a little against gay church marriages since a marriage in that religion is pretty much defined as a man and a woman together. A 2000 year religion should not change it's very basic rules just because we get offended by it. I haven't read the bible but i know a couple of people with a lot of knowledge about the subject, who several times have tried to explain me that.

So basically: Marriage is fine and schould be a basic right. Religious marriage however schould be decided by that very religion. Unless you do a lot for that religion and practically knows everything about it, you don't have the right to decide anything it does.

Just my 2cents 🙂

"Homosexual marrige must not be allowed 'cuz it's against nature's rules,it's unusual"said by my mom,I argued with her for an hour and in the end,my mom label me as a psycho,a freak.Myself is a free people,seeing the homocouples doesn't disgust me,I admired them about how they come to eachother nevermind the prejudice.I hope that someday, the world will accept them as who they are,equally like everybody else,not to look at them like they are "human trash".

Ok, i think is about time i said what i actually think about this.

Marriage should be avoided, it's an obsolete, annoying, and stupid practice that only results on feelings of obligations that used to keep a couple that hated each others guts together and now just drive a couple that used to love each other apart...

IMHO, controversial topics should be left to the educated and intelligent, and average people should just let the more capable handle things. Ideally.
I try to avoid topics such as same-sex marriage on the internet simply because any ensuing debate is more likely to be an argument between nitwits, rather than a formal, informed debate. It is nearly impossible to reach a concensus on any public forum; thus, the point is moot.

I am fully supportive of the LGBT community, but don't really see the point of marriage (especially ones steeped in religion). When I think of marriage, I think of goats. Trading daughters for goats. Nowadays, it's betting half your stuff that you picked the right person. Also, the legal work is a hassle.

"People don't change, they just give in."Kubera is the best.同人音楽 (doujin music)

I ask that this thread be closed before it degenerates (further) into senseless internet bickering.

"People don't change, they just give in."Kubera is the best.同人音楽 (doujin music)

Quote from Myuym

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYMjXucTFaM

So, it appears that homosexuals have came up with a new reason for "natural occurrences" of their behavior. But because it is natural, doesn't mean that it is genetic.
The video states that -

When women is pregnant with a boy, scientist are realizing that a female body often sees the male fetus as a foreign object - and begins to produce antibodies (antigens) against it. The more a woman gives birth to males, the more depth her body becomes at feminizing the male fetus. Which would explain that with every excessive boy, the odds of being gay - goes up significantly.

Is this fact or false? Even if this is true - it is still inconsistent & irrelevant. Okay, so even if a male fetus is capable of being corrupted through organic means - we still have no real sanction as to accept such corruption. Such predicaments aren't true for all women who attempt pregnancy of many males. And how does this even support homosexual marriages? I understand that most of the world is depriving homosexuals the right to marry the person they love. But there’s nothing unusual about that. Nobody has the right to marry any person they love. Everyone has restrictions.

Even if you are a homosexual, you are still as humanly equal to a heterosexual. Your minds, or ways of thinking, may be different from one another but we are all still bound by the same laws of physics. You may have the urge to kill another human - but that doesn't mean we have to right to pursue those urges. All laws, including marriage laws, applies equally to every person - whether they are homosexual or not. Everyone is treated the same.

Of course, homosexuals feel that this is unfair and unjust because the kind of person they are legally entitled to marry - is not a person they love. They believe this is a restriction that is limited to them. But it’s not. There isn’t a person in the United States that has unfettered freedom to marry anyone just because they love them. There are numerous parings of people who love each other and can’t marry. And although love & respect has everything to do with marriage, love is still just an illusion - and an illusion is a given reason for something to occur. Emotion arise from desire, hence an illusion. And just to point it out: Biological facts is stronger than Reasonable facts. No matter how feminine a male behaves - he is still a male. Therefore, he must abide by male rules.

The price of homosexual adoption is also too high. For it to work, the state must redefine marriage, create parentage laws for homosexual couples, and deny the unique role that mothers and fathers play. In the end, children lose and we lose. Children are harmed, which in the end affects everyone in our culture. For this reason, I believe even homosexuals should oppose homosexual adoption. And even if some marriages don’t produce children, it doesn’t nullify the natural tie of marriage to procreation. The purpose of marriage remains regardless of whether married couples actualize it or not. Books are meant to be read even if they collect dust on a bookshelf.

Redefining marriage will impact our culture. It won’t be today, next week, or next year. It will be in the long-term because ideas have consequences. When you sever the natural tie of marriage to procreation and no longer require that children be attached to their parents, you’re doing violence to a vital institution. Marriages start families and families produce the next generation. This is how we secure and stabilize society. That’s why you can’t take a sledgehammer to the core of civilization – the family – and expect that no harm will come. THERE WILL BE HARM. And homosexuals should stop pretending that they are morally right, stop looking for insignificant reasons for their conditions, stop trying to manipulate the government - and accept their fate. 🤢