My views on gay mariage

[Foxaèr]

yet you really don't amount to anything.

Just as your poorly thought out argument amounts to nothing.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Didn't read beyond this. You expose yourself as a bigot for judging people based on who they are with no prior indication as to what kind of person they are. You may as well say you think black people are inferior to white people because of the colour of their skin.

Keep fighting the good fight. The more deludedly ignorant people such as yourself talk about this type of subject, the more notions like gay rights and equality for all people's on the planet gain momentum. You've probably just made a few forum lurkers support homosexual marriage unions through this one post alone.

Good job, mate.

I don't care if you read or not. Indeed that's the only thing you do well, cover your ears and eyes when someone presents and opinion that you don't like.
I have put up with your silly liberal quack for about an hour without complaining about it, have I not?
Of course I'm going to judge people by who they are, especially homosexuals, who wish to be judged on those grounds, else they certainly would not have come up with an idea of forming a "sexual minority", nor would they publicly ridicule themselves by enacting parades on which they flaunt their homosexual identities in front of public eyes. I'm not saying that all homosexuals do this, but the ones that we see do. So why really tell me all of this? Go tell them.
Really, I'm fairly sick of you internationalists going on ranting about the same things, yet you really don't amount to anything.

Keep talking mate. You're so ignorant it's actually quite astounding.

Lets all play the 'judge people based on factors they have no control over [skin colour, race, sexuality]' like the archaic bigots we are I'm not covering my eyes or shutting my ears to silliness, I've heard it all before from bigots who are carbon copies of you. Like I said, I want people like you to keep shouting from the pulpits on subjects such as this. It's great because you do more to further the cause of basic human equality than any argument ever could. So keep up the good work! We're all rooting for you.

I'm not a liberal, I'm a fiscal conservative, a pragmatist and an egalitarian. So shall we chalk up your incorrect analysis of my political/social views to yet more ignorance on your part?

This is a fun game!

Ill let you have the final word. God knows deluded ignoramuses need to get the last the word in at all costs. Tell us again about how homosexuals are synonymous with socially unacceptable behaviour?

[kılıç_mehmet]

Views are changing, and it is becoming more acceptable. Just take a look at what happened recently, after all. The defense of marriage act was struck down by the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional.

I think homosexuality has gone as far as it can in terms of being "acceptable", at least in my own lands, and I'm fairly certain it holds a degree of acceptability not far beyond what goes behind closed doors.
Yes, the US is a sexually...liberal country, where fathers take their daughters to birth control clinics for birth control pill prescriptions, but I wonder how further you can sully your reputation in the international scene by normalizing such misconduct in public, and allowing it to attain the same legal status as being eligible for marriage.

If your entire argument against same-sex marriage hinges on your opinion that only a man and a woman can legally marry, then you are not providing anything valid. You are merely spewing hateful religious propaganda.

And they can do so for a reason. Marriage has been invented for and by heterosexuals, since it is them who can actually reproduce and bear forth children that can do the same later in their life, therebye producing new generations of people, who will do the same, of course within the limits of marriage, meaning, that they will not engage in promiscuity, and stay true to a single partner, of one, which will be the husband, and the other, the wife. Father,mother and children, if you please. The main idea behind it was to be sure of the paternal lineage of the child, of course. But gays certainly don't have such a problem, since they can't really reproduce, can they. Their pleas for the right to marriage is a joke.

[Foxaèr]

Marriage has been invented for and by heterosexuals.

Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage, and for that reason the definition of marriage has evolved as mankind evolved through the ages. You seem to be stuck on the heterosexual track, and it will get you absolutely nowhere except toward idiotville. If there is one thing mankind learns, it is that societal situations must evolve as man's mind evolves. Otherwise, the society that does not change gets stuck in a backwards environment while the rest of the world progresses.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Keep talking mate. You're so ignorant it's actually quite astounding.

I'd say you sound rather arrogant.

Lets all play the 'judge people based on factors they have no control over [skin colour, race, sexuality]' like the archaic bigots we are

Well why really then identify with something that you have no control over? Heterosexuals don't go around making pride parades.
Homosexuals do, so that means that they wish us to judge them on that accord. And they publicize themselves on their sexual identity, so that means I have no other choice but to judge them on the said identity they have picked for themselves.

I'm not covering my eyes or shutting my ears to silliness, I've heard it all before from bigots who are carbon copies of you.

And you think that you're the only liberal/leftist I've spent my time on?

It's great because you do more to further the cause of basic human equality than any argument ever could. So keep up the good work! We're all rooting for you.

I think that there is the cause of basic human inequality, so I personally do not dwell on the equality that doesn't exist. I generally try to be above others as being equal with someone doesn't earn me or my nation anything.

I'm not a liberal, I'm a fiscal conservative, a pragmatist and an egalitarian. So shall we chalk up your incorrect analysis of my political/social views to yet more ignorance on your part?

Meaning, you're liberal. Leftist and internationalist in every way.
It doesn't really matter what your economic viewpoints are, your ideals are the same as the others.

---

Marriage has been invented for and by heterosexuals.

Religion does not have a monopoly on marriage, and for that reason the definition of marriage has evolved as mankind evolved through the ages. You seem to be stuck on the heterosexual track, and it will get you absolutely nowhere except toward idiotville. If there is one thing mankind learns, it is that societal situations must evolve as man's mind evolves. Otherwise, the society that does not change gets stuck in a backwards environment while the rest of the world progresses.

Bah, religion? In my country, all marriages are conducted by civil servants, what kind of a monopoly does religion have here on marriage?
I'm stuck on the heterosexual track because thats the only track that allows for the generation of new generations. For those who prefer the "other tracks", their lineage ends with their lives.

[Foxaèr]

I'm stuck on the heterosexual track because thats the only track that allows for the generation of new generations.

Wrong. The family dynamic is diverse, and same-sex couples are perfectly capable of having children, either through adoption or surrogacy, in order to continue the family name into the next generation.

[kılıç_mehmet]

I'm stuck on the heterosexual track because thats the only track that allows for the generation of new generations.

Wrong. The family dynamic is diverse, and same-sex couples are perfectly capable of having children, either through adoption or surrogacy, in order to continue the family name into the next generation.

Well, their capability is tied to the heterosexual reproduction system though, like they cheat to have children, and even in that case, which of the "fathers" will it be, really? Say that two gays had used two different surrogate mothers to produce two children. Those two children aren't even siblings by blood, and there is also the matter of whose family name will be continued, indeed.
I think this whole thing is a bloody joke, mate, but it kinda starts to sound more and more like Huxley's A brave new world.
If they be so vain, they can go and marry women and have children of their own, and many do so, as a matter of fact. They reject the said lifestyle in order to be in harmony with the public. That is a person I admire, that sacrifices his own petty pleasures to become a part of regular, upstanding society.

[Foxaèr]

I think this whole thing is a bloody joke.

You would, because you have been raised within a societally backwards culture.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Wrong. The family dynamic is diverse, and same-sex couples are perfectly capable of having children, either through adoption or surrogacy, in order to continue the family name into the next generation.

Well, their capability is tied to the heterosexual reproduction system though, like they cheat to have children, and even in that case, which of the "fathers" will it be, really? Say that two gays had used two different surrogate mothers to produce two children. Those two children aren't even siblings by blood, and there is also the matter of whose family name will be continued, indeed.

So much stupidity in a 3 sentences. Cheating to have children? HAH. heteros have been doing it longer than homos have. Who gives a shit if you're siblings by blood or not? For the rest of us who actually care about the children, as long as they're raised well and raised happy, why does it matter if they share DNA? If you want to go on this track you have to say that you think adopted children are of less value in society than biological children. I fail to see the point of the family name argument. Why not just play a game and whoever wins gets to pass on their last name? What impact does that have on the child anyway?

I think this whole thing is a bloody joke, mate, but it kinda starts to sound more and more like Huxley's A brave new world.

I hope you're a joke.

If they be so vain, they can go and marry women and have children of their own, and many do so, as a matter of fact. They reject the said lifestyle in order to be in harmony with the public. That is a person I admire, that sacrifices his own petty pleasures to become a part of regular, upstanding society.

Shame on you for expecting people to suffer because oh it makes you uncomfortable.

[kılıç_mehmet]

So much stupidity in a 3 sentences. Cheating to have children? HAH. heteros have been doing it longer than homos have. Who gives a shit if you're siblings by blood or not? For the rest of us who actually care about the children, as long as they're raised well and raised happy, why does it matter if they share DNA? If you want to go on this track you have to say that you think adopted children are of less value in society than biological children.

Indeed, it's cheating. Obviously people of two sexes can never ever reproduce with eachother can they now? And who gives a shit? I wonder how you'd feel if you were the product of an artificial insemination ritual, in which one of your "fathers" gave is your actual biological father, yet of course, it is still a matter of debate if such people can be called parents at all, in my book, no.
I do care deeply about children, and therefore, I want them to be raised in a natural environment, and be created via natural processes, as they were created for centuries, and raised amongst those who are capable of the said processes.

I hope you're a joke.

I'd tell you a joke, though I'm in no such mood right now.

Shame on you for expecting people to suffer because oh it makes you uncomfortable.

Wow, you've gone far beyond these guys in being sentiment.
Besides, it makes me uncomfortable, and I would like them to act in accordance with it. I stop doing something if someone becomes uncomfortable. If you don't, I guess its your lack of said shame that fuels your behavior.