Homosexual Marriage [at Argentina]

[Sarita]

Ugh.....Julius! Back me up!

It's just not right. Let's see if Julius can help me 

If man and man and woman and woman were not meant to be together in some cases, it would not happen.

Imagine how quickly we would use up the Earth's resources WITHOUT gay people! Us breeders just make more babies to take up more resources, as cynical as that sounds. ;)

[Guest DRL]

If man and man and woman and woman were not meant to be together in some cases, it would not happen.

Imagine how quickly we would use up the Earth's resources WITHOUT gay people! Us breeders just make more babies to take up more resources, as cynical as that sounds.

lol, Good point. :yes:

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Ugh.....Julius! Back me up!

It's just not right. Let's see if Julius can help me 

Sorry, all I can say is that anti-gay marriage is just what I was brought up to believe in...

[Robert Monroe]

If man and man and woman and woman were not meant to be together in some cases, it would not happen.

Imagine how quickly we would use up the Earth's resources WITHOUT gay people! Us breeders just make more babies to take up more resources, as cynical as that sounds.

People are allowed to beleive what they want. I'm personally impartial, but the "not meant to happen" arguement is rather balmy, because a ton of shit thats "not suppsoed" to happen can in fact happen.

["User"]

"Do not speak, if ye do not know"

*Points to thread title*

If you wish to talk, use non-local reasons.

Otherwise, you will be dealt with local reasons,

REGARDLESS if they are not.

He was making one post about his viewpoint on gay marriage in general.  Just because it wasn't about what was going IN Argentina per se doesn't mean he can't post about it. BTW Argentina has a population of around 40 million, not 10.

[Sapphire]

Sorry, all I can say is that anti-gay marriage is just what I was brought up to believe in...

Thanks anyway buddy *Pats on back*

[DZComposer]

My views on homosexual marriage are thus:

If a government provides extra benefits to married couples, IE tax breaks, visitations, powers of attorney, etc., marriage becomes an institution of the state. Once something is an institution of the state, the state must not be discriminatory in the execution of that institution. Thus, if marriage is a state institution, it must be allowed for homosexual couples. I know nothing about the Argentinean constitution, but in the US Constitution, there is something called the equal protection clause that states that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. Thus, discrimination by the government in the US is unconstitutional.

I know a lot of people have a religious objection to homosexual marriage and I have this to say about it: If your church/synagogue/mosque/whatever does not want to marry homosexuals, fine. Religious institutions are private entities, afterall. BUT, when the state grants benefits based on marriage, marriage is no longer a religious-only institution. Your church shouldn't have to marry them, but the governmental agency that handles legal marriages sure as hell should.

I congratulate Argentina on taking this step. If only we could do so here in the US...

[Asper Sarnoff]

I congratulate Argentina on taking this step. If only we could do so here in the US...

What? Isn't it legal in the US?

[DZComposer]

What? Isn't it legal in the US?

It is legal in a handful of states, but not at the federal level and most states don't recognize even the legal marriages in other states.

There is also an awful military policy called "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that makes it so if you are outed as being homosexual, you get kicked out. They're trying to get rid of it now, but there is a lot of resistance.

Religious wingnuts have a lot of power in the US right now. It's sad. We claim to be a land of equality, but if you aren't a christian, forget about running for president. Even running for state government is tough if you aren't christian.

It's changing, but the change is slow and painful. Seeing what the religious do to those not like them is the main driving factor of my views of religion. The evangelical religious claim to be bastions of morality, but in the end they are supremacist oppressors. I will have no part in that shit.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

I'm glad we got Prop 8 passed here in Cali.  :trollface:

[Guest DRL]

My views on homosexual marriage are thus:

If a government provides extra benefits to married couples, IE tax breaks, visitations, powers of attorney, etc., marriage becomes an institution of the state. Once something is an institution of the state, the state must not be discriminatory in the execution of that institution. Thus, if marriage is a state institution, it must be allowed for homosexual couples. I know nothing about the Argentinean constitution, but in the US Constitution, there is something called the equal protection clause that states that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. Thus, discrimination by the government in the US is unconstitutional.

I know a lot of people have a religious objection to homosexual marriage and I have this to say about it: If your church/synagogue/mosque/whatever does not want to marry homosexuals, fine. Religious institutions are private entities, afterall. BUT, when the state grants benefits based on marriage, marriage is no longer a religious-only institution. Your church shouldn't have to marry them, but the governmental agency that handles legal marriages sure as hell should.

I congratulate Argentina on taking this step. If only we could do so here in the US...

Sure here it is a state instution. As far as it is in

the constitution, only married couples may adopt

children - this is another issue the homosexual

couples fought for. Many would like to adopt children,

but under previous conditions they were completely unable

to, simply because they were not married.

Additionally, many had trouble with the hineritance stuff.

Say, an man dies and leavis his partner all he had, but

his brother and famility find themselves in condition

to fight for that property. Now that marriage is legal,

such things will no longer happen - simply because even

if the will does not specifies it, the constitution states that

your marriage partner should at least have 75% of your

assets, unless the will says the opposite.

["User"]

I'm glad we got Prop 8 passed here in Cali. 

Lol.  Wouldn't surprise me if in the future people start pushing to be able to marry more then one partner, like they do in Islamic countries.  50 years ago homosexual marriage was unheard of, what's to stop people from wanting to marry as many people as they want in the future?  They'll claim "equal rights" just as they are doing now. Eventually laws against polygamy will be struck down as unconstitutional... >_<

The way people are treating or attempting to treat marriage nowadays is just pathetic...

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Lol.  Wouldn't surprise me if in the future people start pushing to be able to marry more then one partner, like they do in Islamic countries.  50 years ago homosexual marriage was unheard of, what's to stop people from wanting to marry as many people as they want in the future?  They'll claim "equal rights" just as they are doing now. Eventually laws against polygamy will be struck down as unconstitutional... >_<

The way people are treating or attempting to treat marriage nowadays is just pathetic...

Agreed!

[Robert Monroe]

The problem with marriage is again: rooted in culture, and is a fossil leftover from the 19th century. Marriage, culturally, in most societies at least, is between man and woman. The problem is that in the USA, at least, the legal part of marriage which dictates who gets what property and all that bullshit, is tied into this culture aspect, and yes, the culture is largely Christian, so it is not hard at all to see why its getting so much resistence. What needs to be done is a revision of the civil union system, and make that the official "legal" part, and abolish "marriage" as a federal thing altogether. You can still get married, of course, but it will be a culturual/religious thing only, and carry no legal weight.

Religious wingnuts have a lot of power in the US right now. It's sad. We claim to be a land of equality, but if you aren't a christian, forget about running for president. Even running for state government is tough if you aren't christian.

Which is why most of DC is full of Democrats right now right? More like the Wignuts are just being the most outspoken.

[DZComposer]

You don't have to be in office to have political power. Anyway, most of the homosexual marriage politics is happening on the state-level, and that's where most of the wingnuts are right now.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

I congratulate Argentina on taking this step. If only we could do so here in the US...

I don't...and I'm glad the US hasn't [fully] done that yet...just my $0.02

["User"]

Always nice to see two members on opposite sides of the political spectrum debate controversial topics. :P

[Konchaski]

I don't think gay marriage should even be allowed to be voted by the people. If we went by the people's choice, we'd still have slavery, women, and minorities wouldn't be able to vote. Iowa had the right idea by just doing it then passing the reform through.

But if I'd have my way, I'd tax everything in existence from religion, separate the church and state, make everything become socialist. Not to mention have this country become anti-family and would encourages women to leave their husbands, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians according to some people.  (ex: Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson.) :trollface:

[Guest DRL]

I don't think gay marriage should even be allowed to be voted by the people. If we went by the people's choice, we'd still have slavery, women, and minorities wouldn't be able to vote. Iowa had the right idea by just doing it then passing the reform through.

Well, just to clarify, it was not voted

by the 'people', but by the Deputies

and the Congress. Then it became

legal effectively as the Congress

gave approval.

And it did face opposition. The pro-religion

groups only acted as troublemakers. Julius,

here present, was a moderate compared to

them.

Furthermore:

I don't...and I'm glad the US hasn't [fully] done that yet...just my $0.02

Reason for banning homosexual marriage?

I know you mentioned you were grown up

like that; but I was grown to believe in

Democracy and I believe in [mostly] Autocracy instead.

[Guest Julius Quasar]

Furthermore:Reason for banning homosexual marriage?

I know you mentioned you were grown up

like that; but I was grown to believe in

Democracy and I believe in [mostly] Autocracy instead.

It's a very long story...

[Kursed]

Haha, I'm in the same boat.

I oppose it. it's just not....Natural Do you seriously see Animals being Gay? oh and another thing what about children? I mean We don't have  children being conceived by midi-chlorians. Besides it makes me feel.....unnerved.

[Guest DRL]

I oppose it. it's just not....Natural Do you seriously see Animals being Gay? oh and another thing what about children? I mean We don't have  children being conceived by midi-chlorians.

The same thing says my

grandmother about trangenders,

crime, and... chocolate.

To be honest, we do LOADS of stuff

that is 'not natural'. Just looking at a

computer is not natural at all - it is just

an artificial process as making it, which

again, involves machinery that is not natural,

and the simple fact of making machinery is

not natural.

Me? I will say what I allways tell my grandmother:

Sure you are conservative grandmother - but why should not someone be allowed to pursuit his/her/it's happyness, if he/she/it does not hurt anybody else? Homosexuals do not want to make the world homosexual. They just want to be homosexuals - something many of these religious groups want to forbid at all. Thing is, just because they can not do 'in public', does not means that they can not do it in private, and to archieve a more tolerant society we need to let them be in public as well (as long, of course, as nobody exagerates...)

[Sarita]

Do you seriously see Animals being Gay? oh and another thing what about children? I mean We don't have  children being conceived by midi-chlorians. Besides it makes me feel.....unnerved.

Actually, there are plenty of cases of gay animals. You fail at Google.

Children? There aren't enough straight people in the world to make children for you? Some parents don't even deserve the kids they have. Adopt a Chinese baby girl, for example. Also, gene splicing can be done now. Take DNA from one partner, put it in the sexual parts of a donor, and voila, instant, 99.999999% yours, baby.

[Robert Monroe]

Actually, there are plenty of cases of gay animals. You fail at Google.

Children? There aren't enough straight people in the world to make children for you? Some parents don't even deserve the kids they have. Adopt a Chinese baby girl, for example. Also, gene splicing can be done now. Take DNA from one partner, put it in the sexual parts of a donor, and voila, instant, 99.999999% yours, baby.

Actually taking the sperm from a donnor and putting it in a woman's uterus is in-vitro fertilization, not gene splicing. Gene splicing is exactly what it says on the tin: splicing genes together. Which, in the case of reproduction, is not a terribly smart way to produce offspring, as intercourse ensures that only the strongest and healthiest sperm succeed.

And animals aren't really an arguement as animals lack the psychological attatchements (for the most part) of romantic relationships. They're just fvcking because they're animals.

[Guest DRL]

And animals aren't really an arguement as animals lack the psychological attatchements (for the most part) of romantic relationships. They're just fvcking because they're animals.

But that still gives the

Do you seriously see Animals being Gay?

question a 'Yes' answer.