TeenHelp
Support Forums Today's Posts


Get Advice Connect with TeenHelp Resources
HelpLINK Facebook     Twitter     Tumblr Hotlines

You are not registered or have not logged in

Hello guest! (Not a guest? Log in above!)

As a guest on TeenHelp you are only able to use some of our site's features. By registering an account you will be able to enjoy unlimited access to our site, and will be able to:

Signing up is free, anonymous and will only take a few moments, so click here to register now!



Current Events and Debates For discussions and friendly debates about politics and current events, check out this forum.

View Poll Results: Should homosexuals be able to have the title of "Married"?
No, They should come up with thier own term! (but have same rights) 4 10.26%
No, Gay marriage is wrong. 1 2.56%
Yes, but they should not have the same rights as heterosexual couples. 0 0%
Yes, and they should have all the same rights. 34 87.18%
Voters: 39. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
  (#1 (permalink)) Old
Smitten Offline
WRINGL
Experienced TeenHelper
******
 
Smitten's Avatar
 
Name: Smitten
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Location: East Coast, USA

Posts: 680
Join Date: January 7th 2009

HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 14th 2009, 02:19 PM

Now, I have no problem with homosexuality except for the fact that it makes a lot of women unavailable to me. But the amount of homosexual men means that alot of competition out of the game, so I think it balances out.
What this thread is about is my wondering what everyone views on the topic of homosexuality and homosexual marriage, mainly focusing on marriage.
I think that marriage is something that should be reserved for heterosexual couples, no exceptions.
I have no problem with homosexuals having all the benefits of a marriage but the title of marriage should be reserved for a man and woman. If homosexuals want the same rights and etc, they need to get their own name for the union. marriage is taken!



You know you are on the precipice of greatness when you feel joy, fear, and the butterflies of change all at the same time.


   
  (#2 (permalink)) Old
Prozac Offline
Member
Outside, huh?
**********
 
Prozac's Avatar
 

Posts: 3,812
Join Date: January 8th 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 14th 2009, 02:28 PM

Yes, and they should have all the same rights.

I do not see what the difference is whether it is a heterosexual or a homosexual couple.
It is simply two people declaring their love for each other and making it 'official'.
Why should someone face discrimination and get less rights just because they prefer people of their own gender?
Love is love, in my opinion.
   
  (#3 (permalink)) Old
Jack Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
Jack's Avatar
 
Name: Jack
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Location: Kingston upon Hull/ Brighton, UK

Posts: 1,523
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 14th 2009, 02:29 PM

Why should marriage be reserved for a man and a woman? I can't really see a reason? And why does the semantics of it bother you so much?

Edit: Moved to Debates

Last edited by Jack; July 14th 2009 at 02:48 PM.
   
  (#4 (permalink)) Old
Skeleton Offline
Member
Outside, huh?
**********
 
Skeleton's Avatar
 
Name: Charlie
Age: 24
Gender: Female
Location: UK.

Posts: 4,722
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 14th 2009, 02:34 PM

It should be called marriage and they should have the same rights, no matter what the gender of the people in the relationship is because at the end of the day, the feelings and commitment etc are still the same, so why must the labels and rights be different?
   
  (#5 (permalink)) Old
Smitten Offline
WRINGL
Experienced TeenHelper
******
 
Smitten's Avatar
 
Name: Smitten
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Location: East Coast, USA

Posts: 680
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 14th 2009, 02:48 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephanie View Post
Yes, and they should have all the same rights.
Why should someone face discrimination and get less rights just because they prefer people of their own gender?
Er... I said I have NO problem with them having the same rights. Where did discrimination and less rights come from?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack View Post
Why should marriage be reserved for a man and a woman? I can't really see a reason? And why does the semantics of it bother you so much?
Because of the ability to procreate naturally. I believe that marriage should be reserved for those capable of procreating the way nature intended. I also don't think that couples who do not intend on having children should get married. I see marriage above all else as a commitment to have children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie View Post
It should be called marriage and they should have the same rights, no matter what the gender of the people in the relationship is because at the end of the day, the feelings and commitment etc are still the same, so why must the labels and rights be different?
Thats just what I believe.


You know you are on the precipice of greatness when you feel joy, fear, and the butterflies of change all at the same time.


   
  (#6 (permalink)) Old
Jack Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
Jack's Avatar
 
Name: Jack
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Location: Kingston upon Hull/ Brighton, UK

Posts: 1,523
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 14th 2009, 02:51 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smitten View Post
Because of the ability to procreate naturally. I believe that marriage should be reserved for those capable of procreating the way nature intended. I also don't think that couples who do not intend on having children should get married. I see marriage above all else as a commitment to have children.
So barren women should be forbidden to get married as well? What about straight couples who get married and later decide to not have children? Should they be forcibly divorced? What about unnatural procreation? Certain gay couples can do that, should they be allowed to get married?

Marriage is about so much more than children...
   
  (#7 (permalink)) Old
Prozac Offline
Member
Outside, huh?
**********
 
Prozac's Avatar
 

Posts: 3,812
Join Date: January 8th 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 14th 2009, 02:52 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smitten View Post
Er... I said I have NO problem with them having the same rights. Where did discrimination and less rights come from?
I was actually just questioning it in general, my post wasn't particularly directed towards your beliefs, it was about my beliefs.
Saying that, not being allowed to marry (because they are homosexual = discrimination) = one less right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smitten View Post
Because of the ability to procreate naturally. I believe that marriage should be reserved for those capable of procreating the way nature intended. I also don't think that couples who do not intend on having children should get married. I see marriage above all else as a commitment to have children.
What if a women finds out that she is infertile after she has got married? Does that mean that she should be divorced?
What if a woman had been infertile since birth?
   
  (#8 (permalink)) Old
BigBL87 Offline
Member
Regular TeenHelper
*****
 
BigBL87's Avatar
 
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Location: Illinois

Posts: 452
Join Date: April 10th 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 14th 2009, 02:59 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack View Post
Why should marriage be reserved for a man and a woman? I can't really see a reason? And why does the semantics of it bother you so much?
I'm kind of in the middle ground on the subject. I would prefer not to have it be referred to as marriage, but I also think that with church and state being separate, my beliefs don't necessarily have the right to be legislated. As such, I didn't cast a vote.

The main reason I kind of take issue with the semantics is that LONG, LONG before marriage was a legal union, it was a religious institution. It's something of the church's that the government has stuck it's nose in on, and now is regulating.
   
  (#9 (permalink)) Old
Jack Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
Jack's Avatar
 
Name: Jack
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Location: Kingston upon Hull/ Brighton, UK

Posts: 1,523
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 14th 2009, 03:10 PM

Bruce, marriage pre-dates Christianity so it cannot be a Christian institution. It's more a social insitution than a religious one. It has also evolved seperately in several different religions so even if it was classed as a religious industry there is no saying which religion would hold a claim to it, if this was not regulated there would be huge discrepancies in who could get married and who could not between religions.

I think your middle ground stance is great though, I wish more people thought like that.
   
  (#10 (permalink)) Old
BigBL87 Offline
Member
Regular TeenHelper
*****
 
BigBL87's Avatar
 
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Location: Illinois

Posts: 452
Join Date: April 10th 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 14th 2009, 03:37 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack View Post
Bruce, marriage pre-dates Christianity so it cannot be a Christian institution. It's more a social insitution than a religious one. It has also evolved seperately in several different religions so even if it was classed as a religious industry there is no saying which religion would hold a claim to it, if this was not regulated there would be huge discrepancies in who could get married and who could not between religions.

I think your middle ground stance is great though, I wish more people thought like that.
Right, which is why I said it was a religious institution . Didn't say anything about Christian. However, the "step" before it became government regulated was probably when it was regulated by the church. I understand where you are coming from in calling it a social institution, but I would disagree because I imagine that especially in ancient times, it always involved a religious ceremony.
   
  (#11 (permalink)) Old
Jack Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
Jack's Avatar
 
Name: Jack
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Location: Kingston upon Hull/ Brighton, UK

Posts: 1,523
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 14th 2009, 04:19 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBL87 View Post
Right, which is why I said it was a religious institution . Didn't say anything about Christian. However, the "step" before it became government regulated was probably when it was regulated by the church. I understand where you are coming from in calling it a social institution, but I would disagree because I imagine that especially in ancient times, it always involved a religious ceremony.
Ah I just figured you meant it was Christian as you were annoyed the government regulated it and America is a predominantly Christian country. My bad.

Well, I think you need to look at the importance of the religious ceremony. For example there may have been a ceremony but that was mainly secoundary to the marriage itself (eg asking the gods to smile on the union by offering something to them). I guess it depends where you put the focus. Some ancient marriages didn't involve a religious ceremony such as Comanche, ancient Greek and Eygyptian (some of the first recorded marriages) cultures, in these cultures marriage was a social institution. There were quite a few ancient cultures which did not have religion as an integral part to marriage.

Last edited by Jack; July 14th 2009 at 04:57 PM.
   
  (#12 (permalink)) Old
Mel Offline
Member
Outside, huh?
**********
 
Mel's Avatar
 
Name: Mel
Age: 26

Posts: 4,159
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 14th 2009, 04:21 PM

People usually get married because they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. In my opinion, that is exactly who marriage and the term 'married' should be reserved for, too. Love has absolutely nothing to do with gender, nor is gender the reason people get married. So.. why should two people who love each other not have the same rights as all the other people?

I honestly think that telling people they can't get married or can't use the term 'married' to describe their union simply because of the gender of their partner is discrimination. Why should people have to get their own word? In the end, they're still doing the same thing. They're being with someone they love and want to spend the rest of their life with.



∞ 1.16.07 ∞ 7.4.07 ∞ 9.16.08 ∞

Click here to PM me. | Never Give Up ツ

I have not failed.
I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
   
  (#13 (permalink)) Old
BigBL87 Offline
Member
Regular TeenHelper
*****
 
BigBL87's Avatar
 
Age: 27
Gender: Male
Location: Illinois

Posts: 452
Join Date: April 10th 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 14th 2009, 04:24 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mel View Post
People usually get married because they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. In my opinion, that is exactly who marriage and the term 'married' should be reserved for, too. Love has absolutely nothing to do with gender, nor is gender the reason people get married. So.. why should two people who love each other not have the same rights as all the other people?
Well, if love is the main reason, why shouldn't more than 2 people be allowed to marry? Love isn't limited to only one other person, after all.
   
  (#14 (permalink)) Old
Union Of V Offline
Scepticism With A Tail
I can't get enough
*********
 
Union Of V's Avatar
 
Name: Basil!!!
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Location: Cork, Ireland

Posts: 2,021
Join Date: January 31st 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 14th 2009, 05:31 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smitten View Post
Because of the ability to procreate naturally. I believe that marriage should be reserved for those capable of procreating the way nature intended. I also don't think that couples who do not intend on having children should get married. I see marriage above all else as a commitment to have children.
So you believe that if someone is sterile, they shouldn't be allowed to get married? Also you believe people in an abusive relationship should stay together just to have a child, only to get divorced once the child is born?
  Send a message via MSN to Union Of V  
  (#15 (permalink)) Old
Algernon Offline
CPT-1 Phlebotomist
Outside, huh?
**********
 
Algernon's Avatar
 
Name: Holly
Age: 23
Gender: Female
Location: Roseville, California

Posts: 4,128
Join Date: January 21st 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 14th 2009, 05:43 PM

I think if you get married in a church, you should call it a marriage. If you get married at state, a union.


Geek? Nerd? More like intellectual badass.

"You ran through Africa, and Asia, and Indonesia.. And now I've found you, and I love you. I want to know your name."
  Send a message via Yahoo to Algernon  
  (#16 (permalink)) Old
Smitten Offline
WRINGL
Experienced TeenHelper
******
 
Smitten's Avatar
 
Name: Smitten
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Location: East Coast, USA

Posts: 680
Join Date: January 7th 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 14th 2009, 06:36 PM

I knew people were going to go into infertility.
Naturally, without any abnormal mutations or diseases or physical deformations. A man and woman can reproduce. Therefore even if they are infertile it would in an Ideal situation be possible in nature if they were not infertile. So they are entitled to marry ofcoarse. Being infertile is not their fault. And people who have no wish for children, no. I do not think they should get married either. rather be in a union aswell.


You know you are on the precipice of greatness when you feel joy, fear, and the butterflies of change all at the same time.


   
  (#17 (permalink)) Old
Invert Offline
Hardcore
I've been here a while
********
 
Invert's Avatar
 
Age: 26
Gender: That's not a gender
Location: The Kingdoms United.

Posts: 1,576
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 14th 2009, 06:41 PM

http://forums.teenhelp.org/f38-curre...-gay-marriage/

most this discussion can be found in this thread...


Pride is a Protest

   
  (#18 (permalink)) Old
Jack Offline
Member
I've been here a while
********
 
Jack's Avatar
 
Name: Jack
Age: 24
Gender: Male
Location: Kingston upon Hull/ Brighton, UK

Posts: 1,523
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 14th 2009, 06:45 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smitten View Post
I knew people were going to go into infertility.
Naturally, without any abnormal mutations or diseases or physical deformations. A man and woman can reproduce.Therefore even if they are infertile it would in an Ideal situation be possible in nature if they were not infertile.
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at because that doesn't really make sense.

Quote:
So they are entitled to marry ofcoarse. Being infertile is not their fault.
Being gay is not anyone's fault either. Plus, lesbians can reproduce albeit in an unnatural manner, therefore should they be allowed to get married? If marriage is just about children as you say then yes they should.

Quote:
And people who have no wish for children, no. I do not think they should get married either. rather be in a union aswell.
I hate to repeat myself but, how about people who want children and then change their minds after they marry? And what about couples who become infertile after the marriage due to disease or accident? Should they be forcibly divorced?

Also if marriage is just about children should people with possible hereditary disease be forbidden from marriage?

Also from a practical perspective how would you regulate that? "You must have children within an X amount of years after marriage"? That would throw up huuuuuge legal issues such as a woman's right to control her body.
   
  (#19 (permalink)) Old
Prozac Offline
Member
Outside, huh?
**********
 
Prozac's Avatar
 

Posts: 3,812
Join Date: January 8th 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 14th 2009, 06:54 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smitten View Post
I knew people were going to go into infertility.
Naturally, without any abnormal mutations or diseases or physical deformations. A man and woman can reproduce. Therefore even if they are infertile it would in an Ideal situation be possible in nature if they were not infertile. So they are entitled to marry ofcoarse. Being infertile is not their fault. And people who have no wish for children, no. I do not think they should get married either. rather be in a union aswell.
Naturally, some people are born infertile. Nature is not always what you're interpreting as 'ideal'...
And, as Jack has already stated, people do not necessarily choose their sexuality/who they fall in love with.

Also, I would like to ask whether you think it is acceptable for a forced/unhappy/abusive heterosexual couple to marry and have children (in a bad environment) and for happy, caring, supportive homosexual couple (who could adopt and support their children in a good environment) not marry?
   
  (#20 (permalink)) Old
Union Of V Offline
Scepticism With A Tail
I can't get enough
*********
 
Union Of V's Avatar
 
Name: Basil!!!
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Location: Cork, Ireland

Posts: 2,021
Join Date: January 31st 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 14th 2009, 08:18 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smitten View Post
I knew people were going to go into infertility.
Naturally, without any abnormal mutations or diseases or physical deformations. A man and woman can reproduce. Therefore even if they are infertile it would in an Ideal situation be possible in nature if they were not infertile. So they are entitled to marry ofcoarse. Being infertile is not their fault. And people who have no wish for children, no. I do not think they should get married either. rather be in a union aswell.
Funny - so it's OK because there's a miniscule chance that they might not actually be infertile? Wow I must be in line for an ASBO then!
  Send a message via MSN to Union Of V  
  (#21 (permalink)) Old
Double X Offline
bee boop
I've been here a while
********
 
Double X's Avatar
 
Name: Kyle
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Location: Boston

Posts: 1,626
Join Date: March 11th 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 14th 2009, 09:53 PM

Marriage is not a religious institution. There should be no restriction whatsoever on same-sex marriage. I like the turnout on the poll.

I would rather have the government only grant unions with financial benefits, and churches/temples can perform holy marriages, that don't have any legal importance. And then unionized people can consider themselves married if they want, no one is really stopping them.


"We will ask nothing. We will demand nothing. We will take." -- May 1968, French Graffiti
   
  (#22 (permalink)) Old
Member
I can't get enough
*********
 
InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU's Avatar
 

Posts: 2,089
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 14th 2009, 09:55 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smitten View Post
I knew people were going to go into infertility.
Naturally, without any abnormal mutations or diseases or physical deformations. A man and woman can reproduce. Therefore even if they are infertile it would in an Ideal situation be possible in nature if they were not infertile. So they are entitled to marry ofcoarse. Being infertile is not their fault. And people who have no wish for children, no. I do not think they should get married either. rather be in a union aswell.
What if two homosexual women wanted to get married and have a child so they went to a sperm bank and then reproduced in that way.

Also, what if two people married wanting children and while married, still without children, the two of them then decided they don't want children after all. Should they then get automatically divorced even if they still love each other?

I'm not sure what you're trailing at when you say in an ideal situation. Nature will not always perform in an ideal way, in fact most of the time it won't, so I see no relevance for saying something in an ideal way.

But I have another question, since you're setting the conditions for marriage, shouldn't another be the quality and quantity of care that the couple can give their children? If two people are to get married (heterosexual), and let's say they're drug-users or alcoholics or abusive couples, then that's not great for their children. If a homosexual couple also wanted children (assume they could get sperm from the sperm bank), and they would be excellent parents, would you still say the heterosexuals have the right?

And one more question: what if one member of the couple had both genders and their partner had only one. The one with both genders doesn't fit neatly into the cookie-cutter mold of man (XY) or woman (XX). If they wanted children, then would you say they have a right to marriage or not?

My view on it is fairly simple. Two humans of any gender and any orientation can get married. So if someone denies a group of humans this right, then it makes that group seem as though they're a lesser kind of a human or perhaps they're not a human at all. Marriage is not about having children, it's about showing your love for your partner to such an extent that you wish to have a confirmed bond to hopefully spend the rest of your life with or most of it with. Whether children result or not shouldn't matter nor should their intention to procreate. If people need to procreate, then they can easily and have no need to be married.
   
  (#23 (permalink)) Old
Mel Offline
Member
Outside, huh?
**********
 
Mel's Avatar
 
Name: Mel
Age: 26

Posts: 4,159
Join Date: January 5th 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 15th 2009, 03:19 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by BigBL87 View Post
Well, if love is the main reason, why shouldn't more than 2 people be allowed to marry? Love isn't limited to only one other person, after all.
I didn't make the rule that people couldn't, and I'm not saying I'm against it either. I'm just saying that if 2 people want to get married, they shouldn't have restrictions forced upon them simply because they're not heterosexual.



∞ 1.16.07 ∞ 7.4.07 ∞ 9.16.08 ∞

Click here to PM me. | Never Give Up ツ

I have not failed.
I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.
   
  (#24 (permalink)) Old
Heretic Offline
The Architect
I've been here a while
********
 
Heretic's Avatar
 
Name: Casey
Age: 23
Gender: Male
Location: Wisconsin

Posts: 1,795
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 15th 2009, 03:32 AM

Why shouldn't they call it marriage? Marriage is meant as a union of love in the modern Western definition, so there's no reason to call it anything else.


We will ask nothing. We will demand nothing. We will take.

French Graffiti, 1968

CTN 0452-9
  Send a message via MSN to Heretic  
  (#25 (permalink)) Old
Omar the Lobster!
Regular TeenHelper
*****
 
Oiseau the Little Bird!'s Avatar
 
Name: Bernadette
Age: 25
Gender: Female
Location: New Jersey

Posts: 458
Join Date: January 13th 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 15th 2009, 03:17 PM

"Sandra...Will you perform a Civil Union with me?"

Not as romantic as "marry," imo.


Hey guys, like jewelry that can withstand the blow of a sword? Jewelry that can put up a fight? Check out ChainCreations!

When you whisper, you must be absolutely as sincere as when you scream.


  Send a message via AIM to Oiseau the Little Bird!  
  (#26 (permalink)) Old
Invert Offline
Hardcore
I've been here a while
********
 
Invert's Avatar
 
Age: 26
Gender: That's not a gender
Location: The Kingdoms United.

Posts: 1,576
Join Date: January 6th 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 15th 2009, 03:42 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smitten View Post
I knew people were going to go into infertility.
Naturally, without any abnormal mutations or diseases or physical deformations. A man and woman can reproduce. Therefore even if they are infertile it would in an Ideal situation be possible in nature if they were not infertile. So they are entitled to marry ofcoarse. Being infertile is not their fault. And people who have no wish for children, no. I do not think they should get married either. rather be in a union aswell.
Excuse me? So being gay is their fault? Um... NO. And actually, some people have operations to make themselves infertile. Some people live lifestyles that may lead to infertility (e.g. smoking), etc. So for some, it IS self induced and therefore their fault.

In an ideal situation they could have kids, but the fact is they can't. Yet there are plenty of ways for gays to have kids, and not only adoption.... but say straight people adopt, should they not be allowed to have kids? I mean if marriage is about reproduction? (though in our society, it really isnt). And what about gay couples raising kids? If marriage is for the kids, surely the gays should be able to get married too?

And seperate but equal reinforces division and prejudice. Just reading your first poll option 'they'... it makes in and out groups. Us vs them. 'They' are trying to steal something from 'us', make 'them' come up with their own name.

Also your argument is absurd. Marriage has never been uniquely about children, so the word marriage isnt reserved for that. So if you are claiming gays should have unions with the same rights, but a different name... why? Surely there's a better argument that the legal benefits of marriage are to aid in bringing up kids.... You are pointlessly defending some rigid, not greatly throught through position on pragmatics. Words are arbitary symbols that represent a meaning... they often change. Just look at the work gay. 100 years ago, gay did not mean homosexual.


Pride is a Protest


Last edited by Invert; July 15th 2009 at 03:48 PM.
   
  (#27 (permalink)) Old
Union Of V Offline
Scepticism With A Tail
I can't get enough
*********
 
Union Of V's Avatar
 
Name: Basil!!!
Age: 22
Gender: Male
Location: Cork, Ireland

Posts: 2,021
Join Date: January 31st 2009

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? - July 15th 2009, 08:18 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oiseau the Little Bird! View Post
"Sandra...Will you perform a Civil Union with me?"
Sounds like a bizarre sex position.... yeuch
  Send a message via MSN to Union Of V  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
earth, homosexuality, scourge

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All material copyright 1998-2014, TeenHelp.
Terms | Legal | Privacy | Conduct

Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search engine optimization by vBSEO.
Theme developed in association with vBStyles.