Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 163

Thread: Gay Marriages (No flaming or attacks)

  1. #1
    Banned Shounak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,520

    Gay Marriages (No flaming or attacks)

    This issue flared up last year or the year before. Should or shouldn't it be allowed?

    I'm inclined to say No, as I personally don't think marriage should be between to people of the same sex. Marriage has certain meanings to me and has meant a certain thing to people for thousands of years and I don't want that tarnished.

    Conversely, Gay people are still people. People deserve rights. If my children were gay, I'd hate for them to be pariah's in society, treated with contempt and not afforded basic rights. I think the middle ground is civil unions. It has all of the benefits of the marriage and is just called a different name. I think Civil Unions are fair and equitable thing in todays society.

    One thing I do not agree with though are gay couples adopting children or using artificial means to get hold of children. I've heard the argument, "Do all straight couples produce straigh children? So why should all gay couples produce gay children?". I think all children need both a mother and a father figure. Having two fathers would just blur gender roles or stereotypes in their own head. I'm inclined to belive that as this is what they'be been exposed too, they're more likely to be gay.

    A peripheral matter is all of the stigma they would be subject to during their child hood. But I guess this would change if Gay Marriages became more common.

    This is my reasonably conservative view. Please no attacks or stupid remarks. Let's see if this thread can stay open.

  2. #2
    International Captain cameeel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    6,902
    I think the main argument against same-sex marraiges is the religious one, according to the bible, same-sex relations are a sin, so most christians are fundamentally against the idea of s-s marraiges. Personally, i believe that they should be allowed, i'm not a christian, and my belief is that marraige is a union of love, not a union with the sole purpose of procreation. It all depends on your religion and beliefs, and the uproar that would come from the churches if s-s marraiges where pronounced legal. But whether or not its a 'real' marraige is unimportant, you don't have to be married to live together, and after all, a marriage is just an official recognition of your union.
    Proud Member of the Melbourne Demons ,'97,'98,'99,'05-'13
    Supporter of Melbourne Demons FC, Aston Villa FC, and the Flyers

    "This tournament is a joke. Grass is for cows, I'm never coming back." - Marat Safin

  3. #3
    Banned Shounak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,520
    ^ It can be religious, but not always. We're just getting the largest outcry from the religious side.

    I think for normal people, the objection is more moral and traditional then religious. It can be said that religion is the building block morals and traditions. But in todays society, I'd disagree.

  4. #4
    Hall of Fame Member age_master's Avatar
    Plasmanaut on Fire Champion!
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    15,777
    no it should not be allowed.
    Member of CW Green
    Kerry O'Keefe - Worlds funniest Commentator


  5. #5
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend andyc's Avatar
    Yeti Sports 1.5 Champion!
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    23,853
    I think that the other thread on this that spawned 30 pages of bickering had some very good arguments.
    Basically, I don't think religion should have any part in this because, not only is it wrong to force your beliefs upon someone else, but marriage these days doesn't require any religious element.
    Similarly, it's a bit unfair to say 'oh you guys can just have civil unions.' I'm sure that not many gay people are content with a civil union... hell, I don't even know what it is. It's gotta be allowed. As many members have said, substitute 'gay' for any other word, maybe 'asians' or 'muslims,' and you become a bigot, but it's okay as long as they're gay.
    Quote Originally Posted by flibbertyjibber View Post
    Only a bunch of convicts having been beaten 3-0 and gone 9 tests without a win and won just 1 in 11 against England could go into the home series saying they will win. England will win in Australia again this winter as they are a better side which they have shown this summer. 3-0 doesn't lie girls.

  6. #6
    C_C
    C_C is offline
    International Captain C_C's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    World
    Posts
    6,990
    I agree with the pro gay marriage people here. I define marriage as an official union and celebration of love in a consentual fashion. As such, i dont mind gay marriages at all.

    And i disagree totally that religion is the fundamental bedrock of all morality- morality has existed before religion came into being and will exist long after religion dies, for the sense of right and wrong is a fundamental part of our essence, not dictated by some arbitary God.

  7. #7
    International Vice-Captain KennyD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Aust
    Posts
    4,077
    Yes to gay marriages!!!

    More love is what's needed, I say.
    Quote Originally Posted by SupaFreak2005
    Well Simon and Xavier hit on all the females but the ladies all want Kenny :naughty:
    Quote Originally Posted by steds
    all 3 of them?

  8. #8
    Hall of Fame Member age_master's Avatar
    Plasmanaut on Fire Champion!
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    15,777
    Quote Originally Posted by andyc
    Basically, I don't think religion should have any part in this because, not only is it wrong to force your beliefs upon someone else, but marriage these days doesn't require any religious element.
    Similarly, it's a bit unfair to say 'oh you guys can just have civil unions.' I'm sure that not many gay people are content with a civil union... hell, I don't even know what it is. It's gotta be allowed. As many members have said, substitute 'gay' for any other word, maybe 'asians' or 'muslims,' and you become a bigot, but it's okay as long as they're gay.

    noone forces anyone to get married.

    a civil union, is (i think anyway), giving people the rights of married people without them getting married.

  9. #9
    Hall of Fame Member age_master's Avatar
    Plasmanaut on Fire Champion!
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    15,777
    Quote Originally Posted by KennyD
    Yes to gay marriages!!!

    More love is what's needed, I say.

    how does gay people getting married create more love?

  10. #10
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,104
    There is already a thread around on gay marriage you could have dug up.

    Anyway, I am entirely pro-gay marriage. There's no reasonable justification for allowing marriage and the state-controlled benefits it entails to heterosexual couples but not to homosexual couples, and it is blatant discrimination. The only way it could be reasonable would be if the state withdrew from marriage entirely and it was simply a church/civil servant matter, in which case anybody who wanted to get married could do so if they found someone willing to perform the ceremony, and the state would have no role in recognising or refusing any sort of marriage.

    As it is, the state is heavily involved in marriage. You cannot get married without the permission of the state, you get tax benefits and other state involvement in your married life, you get legal benefits with regard to super annuation, property distribution after death and so on, and the state controls record keeping on marriage. When the state is involved in something it must be fair and equal to all parties, and as such it is totally unreasonable to forbid gay marriage. The Catholic Church, having no obligation to be fair and equal, can do whatever the hell it likes, but the state cannot.
    I know a place where a royal flush
    Can never beat a pair

  11. #11
    Hall of Fame Member FaaipDeOiad's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    19,104
    I am also, for what its worth, entirely supportive of gay adoption and so on. Given the way some heterosexual people treat their children, it's ridiculous to refuse the right to adopt to gays because they might not be 100% ideal parents for some small reason or another. If they're loving and caring parents who treat their children well and provide for them as needed, it shouldn't matter who they have sex with.

  12. #12
    International Vice-Captain Dasa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,955
    Quote Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad
    There is already a thread around on gay marriage you could have dug up.

    Anyway, I am entirely pro-gay marriage. There's no reasonable justification for allowing marriage and the state-controlled benefits it entails to heterosexual couples but not to homosexual couples, and it is blatant discrimination. The only way it could be reasonable would be if the state withdrew from marriage entirely and it was simply a church/civil servant matter, in which case anybody who wanted to get married could do so if they found someone willing to perform the ceremony, and the state would have no role in recognising or refusing any sort of marriage.

    As it is, the state is heavily involved in marriage. You cannot get married without the permission of the state, you get tax benefits and other state involvement in your married life, you get legal benefits with regard to super annuation, property distribution after death and so on, and the state controls record keeping on marriage. When the state is involved in something it must be fair and equal to all parties, and as such it is totally unreasonable to forbid gay marriage. The Catholic Church, having no obligation to be fair and equal, can do whatever the hell it likes, but the state cannot.
    Well said....

    I see no non-religious reason to ban gay marriage or gay adoption for that matter - unless of course you support curtailing human rights.

  13. #13
    International Vice-Captain Dasa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    4,955
    Quote Originally Posted by shounak
    One thing I do not agree with though are gay couples adopting children or using artificial means to get hold of children. I've heard the argument, "Do all straight couples produce straigh children? So why should all gay couples produce gay children?". I think all children need both a mother and a father figure. Having two fathers would just blur gender roles or stereotypes in their own head. I'm inclined to belive that as this is what they'be been exposed too, they're more likely to be gay.
    You say that as if it's a bad thing. At any rate, having two fathers wouldn't make a person more likely to be gay - homosexuality is not something you choose, you either are gay or you're not, and this doesn't change because you're being raised by two fathers or what have you...

    See this link for more info: http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html

  14. #14
    Cricket Web: All-Time Legend andyc's Avatar
    Yeti Sports 1.5 Champion!
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    23,853
    Quote Originally Posted by age_master
    noone forces anyone to get married.

    a civil union, is (i think anyway), giving people the rights of married people without them getting married.
    I wasn't saying anyone was being forced into marriage, I was saying that religious groups shouldn't use their religion as an argument in denying homosexual marriage, because it's wrong on their behalf to assume that everyone follows their religion, or that everyone should.

  15. #15
    Banned Shounak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    2,520
    Quote Originally Posted by Dasa
    You say that as if it's a bad thing. At any rate, having two fathers wouldn't make a person more likely to be gay - homosexuality is not something you choose, you either are gay or you're not, and this doesn't change because you're being raised by two fathers or what have you...

    See this link for more info: http://www.apa.org/pi/parent.html
    I've seen similar research which says the same thing. But I'm not so sure.

    At present, there is insufficient evidence to state that sexual orientation is nature over nurture. Very few children have been raised by a socially accepted gay couple, therefore there is insufficient evidence at this point to make any judgements.

    Being gay is not so much a bad thing. But something I certainly don't want my kids to be, at all. If they were, I would accept it, grudgingly though.

Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Sehwag attacks fellow batsmen for defeat
    By FaaipDeOiad in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 04-04-2005, 09:29 PM
  2. Bowling attacks of today
    By chicane in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 27-04-2004, 01:30 AM
  3. Bowling attacks hit for six
    By Mister Wright in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 01-02-2004, 07:04 AM
  4. Bowling attacks
    By Tom Halsey in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 02-01-2004, 05:06 AM
  5. Jenner attacks the way the English Treat Leg spin
    By chris.hinton in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 26-08-2003, 06:56 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •