Your views on Gay Marriage

[DarK-LorD]

Homosexuality should be allowed,but not homosexual marriages,as they upset the social structure.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

and so have been all other dark desires and evils...why do we fight them?

I am not too sure what other dark desires you have in mind and so I can only generally say.

Homosexuality does not attack me, violate me or cripple & maim me or kill me nor does it harm those who are not inclined.

So, why bother?

 

[U-571]

Gays? no hell no.


Lesbians? hell yeah......

lolllzzz..............................................

 

[Aamna Ali]

Consider this. If there is a necessary link between marriage and procreation, strange consequences would follow. ..
A country could and, to be consistent, should prohibit marriage in which one or both partners are sterile or impotent. If procreation is the essential goal of marriage, why should postmenopausal women be allowed to marry? Surely, discrimination against sterile, impotent, or aged couples would be unacceptable to citizens of many different perspectives. The rationale would be that marriage serves functions that are as important as, if not more important than, procreation, including interpersonal commitment, religious or moral expression, sexual satisfaction, and the legal entitlements associated with spousehood. If elderly, sterile, or impotent couples cannot be denied the right to marry because of a traditional link between marriage and procreation, neither can lesbian or gay couples be denied the right for that type of reason.

As conservatives tirelessly and rightly point out, marriage is society’s most fundamental institution. To bar any class of people from marrying as they choose is an extraordinary deprivation. To outweigh such a serious claim it is not enough to say that gay marriage might lead to bad things. Bad things happened as a result of legalizing contraception, but that did not make it the wrong thing to do. Besides, it seems doubtful that extending marriage to say, another 3 or 5 percent of the population would have anything like the effects that no-fault divorce has had, to say nothing of contraception. By now, the “traditional” understanding of marriage has been sullied in all kinds of ways. It is hard to think of a bigger affront to tradition for instance, than allowing married women to own property independently of their husbands or allowing them to charge their husbands with rape. Surely it is unfair to say that marriage may be reformed for the sake of anyone and everyone except homosexuals, who must respect the dictates of tradition.

Maybe This is just Allah's way of controlling the population without bringing his wrath and destruction upon us!..Think about it!

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

Many people talk about why it's a good idea to legalize homosexual marriage.

I think we should give some consideration to legalizing rape as well. There's half a consent alright.

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

...

Maybe This is just Allah's way of controlling the population without bringing his wrath and destruction upon us!..Think about it!

Since towards the end you did drag Big Mummy i.e. Allah into it, let me tell you (and this strengthens your argument) that He created marriage as a means to bring peace and tranquility between pairs of you - sallama wa mu2adda. Those two are derived from His own attributes i.e. He is salaam -peace?/peace-inducing? and He is waduud - unconditionally-loving. wAllahu a3lam.

Then there are secondary, tertiary,... n-ary objectives like building the building-block of society, adding to that society etc.

 

[Spring Onion]

Consider this. If there is a necessary link between marriage and procreation, strange consequences would follow. ..
A country could and, to be consistent, should prohibit marriage in which one or both partners are sterile or impotent. If procreation is the essential goal of marriage, why should postmenopausal women be allowed to marry? Surely, discrimination against sterile, impotent, or aged couples would be unacceptable to citizens of many different perspectives. The rationale would be that marriage serves functions that are as important as, if not more important than, procreation, including interpersonal commitment, religious or moral expression, sexual satisfaction, and the legal entitlements associated with spousehood. If elderly, sterile, or impotent couples cannot be denied the right to marry because of a traditional link between marriage and procreation, neither can lesbian or gay couples be denied the right for that type of reason.

As conservatives tirelessly and rightly point out, marriage is society’s most fundamental institution. To bar any class of people from marrying as they choose is an extraordinary deprivation. To outweigh such a serious claim it is not enough to say that gay marriage might lead to bad things. Bad things happened as a result of legalizing contraception, but that did not make it the wrong thing to do. Besides, it seems doubtful that extending marriage to say, another 3 or 5 percent of the population would have anything like the effects that no-fault divorce has had, to say nothing of contraception. By now, the “traditional” understanding of marriage has been sullied in all kinds of ways. It is hard to think of a bigger affront to tradition for instance, than allowing married women to own property independently of their husbands or allowing them to charge their husbands with rape. Surely it is unfair to say that marriage may be reformed for the sake of anyone and everyone except homosexuals, who must respect the dictates of tradition.

Maybe This is just Allah's way of controlling the population without bringing his wrath and destruction upon us!..Think about it!

you copy pasted the above without giving credit to the author

 

[desioptimist]

I dont think anybody can catch "gay" or be influenced to be "gay". If two men, or women want companionship and love in each other, what is wrong with that?
The key thing to remember is both are adults, doing their personal things, without harming themselves.

As to whether allow same-sex marriage, it is for the society to decide.

Please dont confuse gay with sodomizing small children, which is rape. If it is your culture, you should stop it.

 

[desioptimist]

Consider this.

Did you just copy it from somebody else. OMG.
I cant unthank you.

 

[BelligerentPacifist]

I dont think anybody can catch "gay" or be influenced to be "gay". If two men, or women want companionship and love in each other, what is wrong with that?
The key thing to remember is both are adults, doing their personal things, without harming themselves.

As to whether allow same-sex marriage, it is for the society to decide.

...

Can we at least request to divorce your and my societies so we can have the freedom to be not dictated by your rules? Or is that only for you to decide.

...
Please dont confuse gay with sodomizing small children, which is rape. If it is your culture, you should stop it.

That's for the society to decide innit? Why're you trying to sneak in your opinion?

What happens if your society believes in 'exceptional waivers' à la NSG and decides it is wrong to sodomize small children, except for desioptimist's?

 

[Spring Onion]

Did you just copy it from somebody else. OMG.
I cant unthank you.

yes she or he just copy pasted entirely not from a blog but from a well established writer's work who has books on his credit including one about gay marriages.

 

[ashokdeiva]

No animal in this planet exhibits the kind of behaviors that humans exhibit. Same sex orientation is sick and don't you think its against the laws of nature.

 

[notsuperstitious]

I strongly oppose as its unnatural and an abomination invented by man.

I mean marriages, of any kind, homo or hetero!

 

[notsuperstitious]

No animal in this planet exhibits the kind of behaviors that humans exhibit. Same sex orientation is sick and don't you think its against the laws of nature.

First of all animals do exhibit homosexual tendencies.

What animals NEVER naturally so is follow religions!

 

[Break the Silence]

MY View on GAY marriage..........