Do you approve of bans on same-sex marriages?

[true blood]

I would probably approve bans on same-sex marriage and I would desire increased privilages for male and female marriages but I'm in favor of totally revamping the institution of marriage and adding lesser civil contracts among citizens. For instance two consenting people could enter "friendship contracts", "lover contracts", etc.. with benefits. I fail to see how honoring a male and female marriage violates homosexuals. The bond between a male and female has brought about many generations. A homosexual bond has never produced another lifeform and will never have the same honor and glory as the male and female bond. Put 10,000 homosexuals together and how will they provide a new generation?

 

[Ardhanariswar]

not all hetero marriages produce children. children are part of marriage, but people dont get married just to have children. but gays do have children. just look at maize and her lovely children. and i wish to adopt. im sure that they wont have any resembalance to the ancient tradtion of marriage where the wives would cook and take care of their husbands, while the husbands work. but this the 21 century! now wives work and men stay home and take care of children.

these *bonds* might not be equal in the matter of gender roles and genitals, but the love is genuine and that is what really counts in a marriage. a lifetime commintment of love.

 

[true blood]

Only hetero unions produce children. The roles played makes no difference whatever century. No other union will ever have equal honor and glory. Taking my frubals for speaking my opinion over a poll in which asked to share ones pov proves much to me and strengthens the stands I will take. I thought polls were respected here. Is it because I'm the minority of this issue I'll get an automatic slam if I vote against your majority? Nice system. Like, isn't this what you claim to be fighting against?

 

[retrorich]

Only hetero unions produce children. The roles played makes no difference whatever century. No other union will ever have equal honor and glory.

With the shocking number of unwanted children being born, I'm not so sure about the "honor and glory" thing. Hetero, homo or bi--sex is all about physical pleasure, always has been, always will be. Who could maintain an erection while thinking about procreation?

 

[Scott1]

Sorry to shock you Maize.... but it really shouldn't. Just because I believe in something does not mean that I want the US government to make it law.

The history of the Catholic Church has shown CLEARLY that when the line is crossed between church and state.... BOTH suffer.

 

[Green Gaia]

Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[retrorich]

Sorry to shock you Maize.... but it really shouldn't. Just because I believe in something does not mean that I want the US government to make it law.

The history of the Catholic Church has shown CLEARLY that when the line is crossed between church and state.... BOTH suffer.

Excellent statement, SOGFPP! I respect your open-mindedness. Frubals to you.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

True Blood -

We disagree on most issues, but I would not wish to see you lose frubals for stating your beliefs, or voting as you see fit on a poll.

My guess is that you were de-frubaled for the statement:
"A homosexual bond has never produced another lifeform and will never have the same honor and glory as the male and female bond."

I'm not certain, but I believe that is the cause.

Personally, I see no honor and glory in a male/female bond. I see the honor (or glory) stemming from the lifelong committment to another person. As has been pointed out numerous times on this site, 50% of all marriages fail - where is the honor and glory in that?

I will defend your right to believe as you see fit, to worship as you wish, and to vote as you feel obliged, but I will not defend statements based on emotional or religious grounds, that have no base in rational thought.

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[retrorich]

True Blood -

We disagree on most issues, but I would not wish to see you lose frubals for stating your beliefs, or voting as you see fit on a poll.

TVOR

I agree TVOR. The only time I have given negative Karma was when someone posted a highly offensive and uncalled-for remark about Muslim women.

 

[huajiro]

I would probably approve bans on same-sex marriage and I would desire increased privilages for male and female marriages but I'm in favor of totally revamping the institution of marriage and adding lesser civil contracts among citizens. For instance two consenting people could enter "friendship contracts", "lover contracts", etc.. with benefits. I fail to see how honoring a male and female marriage violates homosexuals. The bond between a male and female has brought about many generations. A homosexual bond has never produced another lifeform and will never have the same honor and glory as the male and female bond. Put 10,000 homosexuals together and how will they provide a new generation?

Since I have discussed this issue in another thread, I will try another approach here. True Blood, do you admit that the planet is over populated (outside of what the "Bible" says, etc., simple answer)? You are saying that it is better to have 10,0000 straight people which could create hundreds of thousands, or even millions more people. What in the h-ll does this do for the planet? Have you ever stopped to think of what you are truly fighting for, and its consequences?

Let's just say that these 10,000 people are homosexuals as you say. This could mean parents for potentially 5,000 orphaned children. Rather than increase the population, bringing more poverty, you have bettered the life of 5,000 human beings, something that has completely positive effects.

 

[Green Gaia]

Put 10,000 homosexuals together and how will they provide a new generation?

Are you suggesting that homosexuals are not capable of procreating? That is just absurd. I'm gay, I have two children, so obviously your theory is out the window. Besides in your little scenario are you assuming there are no heterosexuals at all? How realistic is that? I think you posted this just to bash anyone who isn't heterosexual, well congratulations your true bigotry has shown through.

 

[Sunstone]

I don't understand what procreation has to do with love. I think the distinction you make, True Blood, between the love of a procreating couple and the love of a non-procreating couple is naive and false. Love is love, regardless of whether a couple is procreating or not.

 

[true blood]

Are you suggesting that homosexuals are not capable of procreating? That is just absurd. I'm gay, I have two children, so obviously your theory is out the window. Besides in your little scenario are you assuming there are no heterosexuals at all? How realistic is that? I think you posted this just to bash anyone who isn't heterosexual, well congratulations your true bigotry has shown through.

I'm just making my stand for what I believe in. I think a loving relationship between a man and a woman has greater capacity, evident in their ability to bring forth a child as compared to a homosexual relationship which appears to have limits. A man and woman, in love, being fruitful. It's a beautiful thing. It is the cycle of life and the glory and honor is in the love. This is the truth. No religious or emotional statements, just my stand on the subject so don't hate.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

True Blood -

I (speaking only for myself) have no hatred of you for what you believe. I simply disagree with you, and am of the opinion that your position is based on your religious beliefs. It may, in fact, not be. However, that is the way I perceive it.

TVOR

 

[huajiro]

True Blood:

Why don't you ever answer me in the forums?

 

[true blood]

huajiro, I'm not sure how to respond to the planet's population question. Do I think it's over populated? No. And I wouldn't blame the earth's population number for the worlds poverty issues. My comments about many homosexuals living as a whole was pure speculation. I was trying to imagine something like a nation of all homosexuals in comparision to one with all heterosexual. I do not think they are equal relationships.

 

[huajiro]

huajiro, I'm not sure how to respond to the planet's population question. Do I think it's over populated? No. And I wouldn't blame the earth's population number for the worlds poverty issues. My comments about many homosexuals living as a whole was pure speculation. I was trying to imagine something like a nation of all homosexuals in comparision to one with all heterosexual. I do not think they are equal relationships.

My point to you is this: You think homosexual marriages should not be allowed, period. You think that only people who can "breed" (forgive the term, I just feel like using it now) should be allowed to be together, period.

My question to you is: have you ever thought of the affect of this reproduction on the planet? Your beliefs (from what you have shown) are based on what men you don't even know wrote in a book. Those men are not on the planet now. I am sure if they were, they would rethink what they wrote.

We must control the population, so why must you promote reproduction?

 

[keevelish]

I agree with you true blood on most points except the "love contracts" idea.

 

[huajiro]

I agree with you true blood on most points except the "love contracts" idea.

Please elaborate on why you think this way

 

[true blood]

My point to you is this: You think homosexual marriages should not be allowed, period. You think that only people who can "breed" (forgive the term, I just feel like using it now) should be allowed to be together, period.

My question to you is: have you ever thought of the affect of this reproduction on the planet? Your beliefs (from what you have shown) are based on what men you don't even know wrote in a book. Those men are not on the planet now. I am sure if they were, they would rethink what they wrote.

We must control the population, so why must you promote reproduction?

Are you saying more homosexuals and less reproduction will preserve our planet?