Political Crossfire Forums

[rxb fan]

why do people dislike the idea of gay marriage in the first place? honestly i haven't heard any valid answers as to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. all i've heard is "it's just not natural" (let's get rid of vegetarians while we’re at it) and “our children shouldn’t be exposed to it." no answers to actually validate the decision. What i'm getting is that people just don't like it, even though all evidence points to there being no reason to disliking it. Or at least interfering with it rather than avoiding it. please restore my faith in society and somebody give me a good reason! :x from what i've seen on this forum the majority of the people here are against govt. interference, but there's bound to be somebody here...

[rxb fan]

...anybody?

[rxb fan]

...anybody?

[rxb fan]

...anybody?

[SCC]

Look under the headline gays and lesbians and you'll find answers. If not, I'll answer. This belongs in society though.

[callous]

the only reasons to keep gay marraige from being allowed are as follows.

Tradition.

Religious principles.


Neither of which apply in any Democracy where humans have personal freedoms of any realistic kind.

[Onevote]

rxb fan wrote: why do people dislike the idea of gay marriage in the first place? honestly i haven't heard any valid answers as to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. all i've heard is "it's just not natural" (let's get rid of vegetarians while we’re at it) and “our children shouldn’t be exposed to it." no answers to actually validate the decision. What i'm getting is that people just don't like it, even though all evidence points to there being no reason to disliking it. Or at least interfering with it rather than avoiding it. please restore my faith in society and somebody give me a good reason! :x from what i've seen on this forum the majority of the people here are against govt. interference, but there's bound to be somebody here... There is no real reason to dislike alot of things that we dislike! It usually comes down to," what we don't understand and have no common ground with we dislike. That doesn't make it right ,but thats the way it is.

[free thinking american]

rxb fan wrote: why do people dislike the idea of gay marriage in the first place? honestly i haven't heard any valid answers as to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. all i've heard is "it's just not natural" (let's get rid of vegetarians while we’re at it) and “our children shouldn’t be exposed to it." no answers to actually validate the decision. What i'm getting is that people just don't like it, even though all evidence points to there being no reason to disliking it. Or at least interfering with it rather than avoiding it. please restore my faith in society and somebody give me a good reason! :x from what i've seen on this forum the majority of the people here are against govt. interference, but there's bound to be somebody here...

I don't really get it either. I have a sister in a lesbian relationship that is at least as stable as any hetro people I know.

As far as the vegetarians, hell yeah get rid of them f@#ckers. :wink:

[Tono]

free thinking american wrote: As far as the vegetarians, hell yeah get rid of them f@#ckers. :wink:

Keep the government out of our kitchens!!!!1!!!one!!!

[RickyBear]

rxb fan wrote: why do people dislike the idea of gay marriage in the first place? honestly i haven't heard any valid answers as to why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. all i've heard is "it's just not natural" (let's get rid of vegetarians while we’re at it) and “our children shouldn’t be exposed to it." no answers to actually validate the decision. What i'm getting is that people just don't like it, even though all evidence points to there being no reason to disliking it. Or at least interfering with it rather than avoiding it. please restore my faith in society and somebody give me a good reason! :x from what i've seen on this forum the majority of the people here are against govt. interference, but there's bound to be somebody here...

You get your "it's not natural" answer for one reason, in reality it is not. 2 men can not have children, nor 2 women, thus in actuality it is not a natural act, now emotional it is a different story, I guess any 2 people of the same sex can love one another, I don't happen to agree with it and I would vote it down if it came to a vote, how ever you have to understand that by definition it is not natural, it is emotional, we are driven by our emotions more these days than in the past, way past that is, when natural instinct was the norm, I don't know man there are always going to be two side to every debate, I happen to be on the side you are not, thats natural.

[SCC]

Most people(including myself in the past) view marriage as founded upon practicality: two people. Thus, it rules out polygamy, and given the procreational defects of incest, it too is out of the picture. A practical marriage wouldn't include two individuals of the same sex receiving a legal marrital bondage, therefore, homosexuality is out of the question.

[Rhoades]

Gay marriages do not produce children. Therefore, not natural.

[callous]

Rhoades wrote: Gay marriages do not produce children. Therefore, not natural.

What stone age blind nonsense.

[rxb fan]

free thinking american wrote: As far as the vegetarians, hell yeah get rid of them f@#ckers.

whoah, there. didn't mean i was aginst vegetarians. im just saying that as long as people want to get rid of things that aren't 'natural', why not take a look at it on a more personal front? just as humans were most probably meant to do it with the opposite sex, humans were also most probably meant to eat meat, veggies, fruits, dairy, and grain.

SCC wrote: A practical marriage wouldn't include two individuals of the same sex receiving a legal marrital bondage, therefore, homosexuality is out of the question.

why not a practical marriage? im pretty sure at least a few gay couples have been legally married...haven't they?

callous wrote: the only reasons to keep gay marraige from being allowed are as follows.

Tradition.

Religious principles.


Neither of which apply in any Democracy where humans have personal freedoms of any realistic kind.

tradition. always tradition. i do love the fiddler on the roof. great movie. as for religious principals, the only reason for that is that whole deal on sodom and gomorrha, which happened in the old testament when god was wrathful. i guess when religion is your life, you really don't question the bible.

i do agree, this whole matter with religion falls more or less under the separation of church and state.

[rxb fan]

Rhoades wrote: Gay marriages do not produce children. Therefore, not natural.

i know it's not natural! :x what's that have to do with whether it should be banned or not?

[Thrilla]

some people believe homosexuality is a sexual abomination...and nothing should be done to legitimize it

[callous]

Thrilla wrote: some people believe homosexuality is a sexual abomination...and nothing should be done to legitimize it

some people think nazi's are trustworthy human beings. Some people think crystal meth is the gateway to the next dimension.

problem with homosexuality is its proven to be a genetic trait, which makes it a crime of humanity to disregard their rights.

darn it eh

[righturnonred]

I am unaffected by any commitment that two homosexuals make between themselves, including marriage. But adoption is definitely inappropriate. Yes, I'm sure two gays are very capable of providing love for a child, but that is not enough in my estimation.

Such a situation is inherently dysfunctional simply for the fact such an arraignment is incapable of producing the same emotional dynamic found in a male/female team with the roles they play and represent. This in immensely important to the normal development of children.

Two mommies, or two daddies inevitably creates confusion and places significant, and unfair social pressures on a child. Bottom line is, it is too radical of a concept to warrant placing undeveloped children into such an unpredictable environment.

To be fair, many marriages end in divorce (nothing close to 50%, because many divorcees remarry and divorce multiple times), and that is bad for children. Single motherhood is bad for children. Single fatherhood is bad for children. Dysfunctional heterosexual marriages are bad for children. AND I wouldn't sanction that any of these instances provide suitable situations for adoption.

Unfortunately, the government cannot evaluate the relationships or family structures of ill-equiped or unsavory heterosexual couples who choose to have their own biological children, because basically, there own child is their own business, regardless of how inept they are, until the threshold of abuse is crossed of course.

When the government is charged with placing custody of children, they are required to make these evaluations, and I'm sorry to say that bizarre relationships don't qualify, hetero, homo, whatever.

[JustMe]

RickyBear wrote:
You get your "it's not natural" answer for one reason, in reality it is not. 2 men can not have children, nor 2 women, thus in actuality it is not a natural act,

That again is a religious explaination. Perhaps YOU think the purpose of marriage is to procreate, but not everyone does. Why do you think YOUR religious belief should take preceence over mine?

RickyBear wrote: now emotional it is a different story, I guess any 2 people of the same sex can love one another, I don't happen to agree with it and I would vote it down if it came to a vote, how ever you have to understand that by definition it is not natural, it is emotional, we are driven by our emotions more these days than in the past, way past that is, when natural instinct was the norm,

Emotions aren't "natural"? Love isn't "natural"?

I actually thank you for your post because you illustrated the point the the OP tried to make ...

That you can't give a GENUINE reason as to why Gay people shouldn't be married. You gave no good reason why YOUR views should prevent me from living my life as I wish.

[Ameriman]

callous wrote: the only reasons to keep gay marraige from being allowed are as follows.

Tradition.

Religious principles.


Neither of which apply in any Democracy where humans have personal freedoms of any realistic kind.

Isn't the definition of personal freedom the right to have tradition and religious principles among other things?