Do you approve of bans on same-sex marriages?

[Pah]

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

It will certainly help.

-pah-

 

[true blood]

It will certainly help.

-pah-

If the entire population was heterosexual, we'd be fine. Now if everyone was homosexual, what, we'd last 120 years or so, then what? We'd have to assign proceation mates. Perhaps in a homosexual world, those elected or volunteers to procreate could enter into special marriage contracts. I'm just trying to picture a society where homosexual relationships are the norm. Are there any today that could reflect how it might be?

 

[Pah]

If the entire population was heterosexual, we'd be fine. Now if everyone was homosexual, what, we'd last 120 years or so, then what?

That makes no sense to me.

-pah-

 

[Yerda]

If the poll has one more vote for a ban then I apologise. I didn't read the question correctly and may have clicked the wrong option, sorry. Homosexual people should have all the rights of 'people' as far as I understand.

 

[Bastet]

If the entire population was heterosexual, we'd be fine. Now if everyone was homosexual, what, we'd last 120 years or so, then what? We'd have to assign proceation mates. Perhaps in a homosexual world, those elected or volunteers to procreate could enter into special marriage contracts. I'm just trying to picture a society where homosexual relationships are the norm. Are there any today that could reflect how it might be?

It's nice how you just totally ignore the fact that science has come up with a way for homosexuals to reproduce, without the need to physically have sex with someone of the opposite gender. :sarcastic I'd hazard a guess and say that homosexuals would reproduce exactly the way they do now.

 

[huajiro]

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

I am saying it will help.

 

[huajiro]

If the entire population was heterosexual, we'd be fine. Now if everyone was homosexual, what, we'd last 120 years or so, then what? We'd have to assign proceation mates. Perhaps in a homosexual world, those elected or volunteers to procreate could enter into special marriage contracts. I'm just trying to picture a society where homosexual relationships are the norm. Are there any today that could reflect how it might be?

True Blood,

What makes you think this planet needs us? We do nothing but destroy it. Wouldn't you prefer to reduce the population by not reproducing, rather than letting "Man" run his course and destroy himself and everything on the planet?

As far as a society where homosexuality is the norm, I live near a little area called Hillcrest here in San Diego. I would say that 95% of the population there is homosexual. The streets are clean, there is no crime, no homeless, and everyone even dresses well. It sounds more like the "Heaven" that your "Bible" talks about than any other place I know. You explain that one to me.

 

[Economist]

While it would be unconstitutional to outlaw same sex cohabitation, there is nothing in the constitution that requires the government to recognize same sex unions as marriage.

 

[huajiro]

While it would be unconstitutional to outlaw same sex cohabitation, there is nothing in the constitution that requires the government to recognize same sex unions as marriage.

Our Forefathers, those homophobes:areyoucra

 

[Jaymes]

While it would be unconstitutional to outlaw same sex cohabitation, there is nothing in the constitution that requires the government to recognize same sex unions as marriage.

Then in that case, there's nothing in the constitution that requires the government to recognize opposite sex unions. If it applies to one, it applies to the other.

 

[Pah]

While it would be unconstitutional to outlaw same sex cohabitation, there is nothing in the constitution that requires the government to recognize same sex unions as marriage.

I beg your pardon - You obviously are not familiar with Loving v Virginia which happened right here in our state. Within that case, precedent was established that did two things that directly apply to same sex marriage.

If you will remember or should hear for the first time, the case validated a marriage in Massachusetts that Virginia would not and forced Virginia to accept the marriage (the parrallel is astonishing, isn't it). The second was that it defined the choice of marriage partner as a right of individual choice.

This is off the top of my head but I'll gladly provide quotes from the case if you like.

Bob,
a fellow Virginian who understands the secular grounds and precedents for same-sex marriage.

 

[Doc]

Hats off to Virginia!

 

[Blusatin7]

I bet the mojority of people who voted for the ban never really knew any homosexual people enough to really understand they are PEOPLE TOO. America should be more open-minded, after all, we are the "melting pot" of the world. If our founding fathers wanted this country and its people to be free, how did we get around to cutting off the freedom of other due to their sexual preference. Two homosexual people getting married doesn't anyones life in jepoardy or harm anyones health or well-being does it?? So why should we put a ban on it?

 

[Quoth The Raven]

I bet the mojority of people who voted for the ban never really knew any homosexual people enough to really understand they are PEOPLE TOO. America should be more open-minded, after all, we are the "melting pot" of the world. If our founding fathers wanted this country and its people to be free, how did we get around to cutting off the freedom of other due to their sexual preference. Two homosexual people getting married doesn't anyones life in jepoardy or harm anyones health or well-being does it?? So why should we put a ban on it?

It's all about the degredation of moral fibre, Bluesatin, have you not been listening?! Starts in fun, ends in asexual stealth phrases, and homosexuals sneaking round, permeating our society with their 'gayness' while we're not looking.:bonk:

 

[true blood]

True Blood,

What makes you think this planet needs us? We do nothing but destroy it. Wouldn't you prefer to reduce the population by not reproducing, rather than letting "Man" run his course and destroy himself and everything on the planet?

As far as a society where homosexuality is the norm, I live near a little area called Hillcrest here in San Diego. I would say that 95% of the population there is homosexual. The streets are clean, there is no crime, no homeless, and everyone even dresses well. It sounds more like the "Heaven" that your "Bible" talks about than any other place I know. You explain that one to me.

It seems we agree that homosexuality will decrease reproduction. Harmful or Helpful for life. Is this where we disagree?

 

[huajiro]

I bet the mojority of people who voted for the ban never really knew any homosexual people enough to really understand they are PEOPLE TOO. America should be more open-minded, after all, we are the "melting pot" of the world. If our founding fathers wanted this country and its people to be free, how did we get around to cutting off the freedom of other due to their sexual preference. Two homosexual people getting married doesn't anyones life in jepoardy or harm anyones health or well-being does it?? So why should we put a ban on it?

Keep in mind that our "founding fathers" are the same hypocrates that said "all men are created equal" and most if not all owned slaves.

 

[huajiro]

It seems we agree that homosexuality will decrease reproduction. Harmful or Helpful for life. Is this where we disagree?

Completely and emphatically.

 

[Doc]

How different is it if a non-productive homosexual couple married than a non-productive heterosexual family married. If neither produce offspring for whatever reason, what is the difference if they married or not?

 

[kreeden]

No , I do not agree with the ban . However , a Religion shouldn't have to preform the marriage if it goes agaisnt their believes neither . IMHO .

And I just have to post a link to the words of this song ....

http://www.lyricsbox.com/barlow-lyrics-married-by-elvis-t3jqbmh.html

 

[retrorich]

No , I do not agree with the ban . However , a Religion shouldn't have to preform the marriage if it goes agaisnt their believes neither . IMHO .

And I just have to post a link to the words of this song ....

http://www.lyricsbox.com/barlow-lyrics-married-by-elvis-t3jqbmh.html

I agree. Religious organizations should not be required to perform same sex marriages--or any other type of marriage they do not approve of. Those religious organizations that wish to perform such marriages should be allowed to do so. NO HUMAN COUPLE OF LEGAL CONSENTING AGE should be denied the right to a civil marriage which offers ALL LEGAL RIGHTS AND BENEFITS afforded to those married by a clergyperson. The bans against same sex marriage that passed in 11 states are a violation of civil rights and should be overturned by the courts.