• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Should homosexuals be allowed to marry

Status
Not open for further replies.

Antiyonder

Overlord
Eating meat is only wrong during one day a week for forty days. And that is to remember Jesus fasting in the desert for forty days and forty nights, so it is understandable.

What holidays cant we celebrate?

Halloween is actually considered by many Christian sects to have a Christian link.

Ive never heard of Christians not being allowed to drink coffee or tea.

I'm talking other religions, not just Christianity. The no-no on coffee and tea is a Mormon rule.
 

darkcharizard58

Well-Known Member
It's this point that bothers me the most, really. I can at least understand the view point of why gays shouldn't be able to marry. I used to be very devout, and I've made the argument myself. However this is just...wrong. A straight couple may have children. A single dad may have children. A single mom may have children. It's all legal under the law. Two gay men, or gay women, can't have children. What changes? Is the dynamic upset so much by the inclusion of two dads or two moms so much that the child's development is traumatized or the like? In florida a single woman can adopt a child, but a single gay woman legally can't. Any argument that this about "the children" is absolute garbage. It's about sexuality. They can't because they're gay. That's wrong. To let hundreds of thousands of kids sit and rot in foster care and deny them a huge demographic that's willing to adopt them, is not only discriminatory, it's just plain evil.

Well you have to think of the children, also think of many of the foster care systems or orphan homes that are religiously based. If there is an orphan home that was started by a church, then you can see the problems with them adopting out to gay couples. Also, the children. You have to make sure first that they are ok with having two dads or two moms. You also have to think of how much they will be harassed because their parents are gay. Yes its wrong that it would happen, but i think youll agree kids can be mean like that, and if you think that it wouldnt happen then youre just naive. That said, if they are adopting from a non religious agency and the child is alright with it, then by means let them adopt the kid.

I'm talking other religions, not just Christianity. The no-no on coffee and tea is a Mormon rule.

Ok i understand now everything there is discouraged by a religion, i thought you were speaking just about christianity. And i had no idea that Mormons didnt drink coffee or tea. you learn something new everyday i guess
 
Last edited:

MewTwoEx

Metagross Master
I think they should be allowed to marry as I don't really have anything against homosexuals, so I don't see any reason to say no
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
darkcharizard58 said:
You have to make sure first that they are ok with having two dads or two moms. You also have to think of how much they will be harassed because their parents are gay.
Why wouldn't children be okay with having two moms or two dads? They're innocent. They'll love anyone who loves them back.

Children are harassed for plenty of reasons. Race, sexuality, religion, physical features; this would be no different. You handle it the same way.
 

wearjo

Pokemon Trader
Well, personally i am fine with homosexual marriages, i mean this is my point of view:

Take away the lumps and bumps and we're all the same arent we???

And also, 4 of my friends are homosexual and are married to each other (not a foursome)

So i think it is perfectly acceptable that homosexual marriages are allowed.

Which also leads to why i'm an atheist. Even though im not homosexual myself.
 

darkcharizard58

Well-Known Member
Why wouldn't children be okay with having two moms or two dads? They're innocent. They'll love anyone who loves them back.

Children are harassed for plenty of reasons. Race, sexuality, religion, physical features; this would be no different. You handle it the same way.

Not all children who are up for adoption are little toddlers. There are teen agers too, who would know the implications of being adopted by a gay couple. Yes children are harassed for many reasons, but do you honestly think that a child would go live with a gay couple knowing it would cause things like harassment, when there are plenty of straight couples who would adopt them. If it were you, who would you choose.
 

ASB

Weather Team Hater
Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is not marriage.
 

Pansy :]

anustart
-Denying them is a violation of religious freedom (civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions).
-Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity) should be available to all couples.
-Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with most evidence strongly supporting biological causation.
-Denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination.
-It doesn't hurt society or anyone in particular.
-The only thing that should matter in marriage is love.
-The number of child adoptions should increase since gay couples cannot pro-create
-It encourages people to have strong family values and give up high-risk sexual lifestyles.
-The same financial benefits that apply to man-woman marriages apply to same-sex marriages.
*copied from here
 

Chris-kun

i still believe
Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is not marriage.

It's wonderful that you can simplify marriage down like that but it's really not that easy. You need to remember that marriage has a lot of rights and privileges that homosexuals in monogamous, long term relationships are denied simply due to their sexuality and nothing else.
 

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
Marriage didn't even used to be defined that way. It used to be defined between same races, then people in the same social class, then people in the same religion, etc.

You guys truly aren't saying anything different from those guys.

darkcharizard58 said:
Not all children who are up for adoption are little toddlers. There are teen agers too, who would know the implications of being adopted by a gay couple.
Teenagers make their own choices anyway. Don't see the problem here.

Yes children are harassed for many reasons, but do you honestly think that a child would go live with a gay couple knowing it would cause things like harassment, when there are plenty of straight couples who would adopt them. If it were you, who would you choose.
If bullying was fixed in schools, this wouldn't be a problem at all. Can't blame same sex marriages for this.
 

Juputoru

M-m-m-m-onobear?!
(note: Throughout this post, "marriage" means "secular marriage"(aka the one that actually gives you a bunch of rights). Religious marriage can do whatever the **** it wants to, although it'd be nice if more religions were accepting of gay marriage.)

I would very much like the right to marry like the other 90% of the population can, thankyouverymuch. There's no good reason to be against gay marriage("b-b-b-but TRADITION!", "but my religion says they shouldn't be able to!" and "but gay people are icky" aren't good reasons).

I don't see how people can call homosexuality unnatural when it is as common in animals as it is in humans tbh.
Other people have commented on this already, but I have on thing to add: When it comes to giving people rights, it shouldn't matter if homosexuality is natural. The whole "is being gay genetic/otherwise not a choice?" debate is just sidestepping the real issue. Religion is clearly a choice & definitely non-natural(when was the last time you saw random animals praying to Allah/Yahweh/whoever?), yet people receive certain legal protections based around their religion(ex. you can't be fired because of your religion). Whether or not being gay is a choice, gay people should still have the same rights as everyone else.


Well you have to think of the children, also think of many of the foster care systems or orphan homes that are religiously based. If there is an orphan home that was started by a church, then you can see the problems with them adopting out to gay couples. Also, the children.
Tough shit. If a church doesn't want to give orphans parents because they're that prejudiced against gay people(or any other group, for that matter), then maybe they shouldn't be in charge of adopting out children in the first place.

You have to make sure first that they are ok with having two dads or two moms. You also have to think of how much they will be harassed because their parents are gay. Yes its wrong that it would happen, but i think youll agree kids can be mean like that, and if you think that it wouldnt happen then youre just naive.
Kids will harass other kids for:
-Being fat
-Being short
-Being a weakling
-Having glasses
-Having braces
-Being smart
-Being dumb
-Having a weird nose
-Wearing certain kinds of clothes
-Having a name that rhymes with "poop", "dumb", "butt", & a variety of other crass words.
-No discernable reason other than they just plain don't like you.

If we're trying to stop kids from being harassed, the only possible way to prevent all of it is to keep them locked away from other children. Using it as an argument against gay couples being allowed to adopt is just plain misguided(especially when the harm of more kids being stuck in the foster system forever far outweighs the bullying they might get for a few years).


ASB said:
Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman.
So? If we allow gay marriage, then marriage will be redefined as "the union between two consenting adults (who presumably love each other & want to be together forever)". Try making an actual argument instead of going "WELL THE DICTIONARY SAYS THIS, THEREFORE GAY MARRIAGE ISN'T MARRIAGE".

Unless you want to go down the rabbit hole of traditional marriage, in which case I'll throw out the "it's historically been a loveless concept made primarily for economic benefit," "it hasn't always been religious(and certainly not always Christian)", "it generally involved the man basically owning the woman", and "black people and white people couldn't even get married in every US state until 44 years ago." tidbits now.
 
Last edited:

KalenArleth

Iridium Trainer
Marriage is defined as the union between a man and a woman. Gay marriage is not marriage.

This is quoted directly from a dictionary.

Marriage.
–noun
1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.

See the text below the 'b'? Marriage is DEFINED both ways.


Anyway, I believe it should be allowed.

On a side note:
Marriage wasn't always Christian, so any Christians that claim that gay marriage goes against tradition can go learn some history. Then they can accept that Christianity did not invent marriage.
 
Last edited:

darkcharizard58

Well-Known Member
If bullying was fixed in schools, this wouldn't be a problem at all. Can't blame same sex marriages for this.

I didnt blame same sex marriages for it, but i applaud your use of an unfound accusation as a way of avoiding my question. If you were a kid, which would you choose.
 

Ethan

Banned
Well you have to think of the children, also think of many of the foster care systems or orphan homes that are religiously based. If there is an orphan home that was started by a church, then you can see the problems with them adopting out to gay couples. Also, the children. You have to make sure first that they are ok with having two dads or two moms. You also have to think of how much they will be harassed because their parents are gay. Yes its wrong that it would happen, but i think youll agree kids can be mean like that, and if you think that it wouldnt happen then youre just naive. That said, if they are adopting from a non religious agency and the child is alright with it, then by means let them adopt the kid.

Lol. " BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN." Classic.

There is not one independently organized orphanage or foster home in the United States. While some orphanages may be affiliated with certain religious groups, they are ALL supervised by the STATE. Therefore they don't have the right to turn away gay couples that may want to adopt simply because their religion tells them not to. It's not the same deal with marriage. A church can deny marrying a gay couple because hey, they don't believe in it. They can be wed by someone else. Foster homes on the other hand, that's entirely a government matter. Also, what Juputoru said. Tough shit. Here's the kicker, teenagers can already choose which parents they are adopted to, whether they are a straight couple or not, so that point holds zero validity.

I didnt blame same sex marriages for it, but i applaud your use of an unfound accusation as a way of avoiding my question. If you were a kid, which would you choose.

Depends on what kind of kid we're talking about, this a dumb question. If I'm five years old, I'm innocent and I don't care whether my parents are gay or not. If I'm a teenager, I could choose either or. And I like how you worded this question as a rhetorical. As if, obviously no one would choose a gay parent knowing the implications. I'm sure there are plenty of well educated and non discriminatory foster kids that would fully choose a gay couple to adopt if given the choice. I'm bi, so I guess my answer doesn't count, but I'd choose a gay couple if the given the opportunity and I knew they were capable parents.
 
Last edited:

GhostAnime

Searching for her...
I didnt blame same sex marriages for it, but i applaud your use of an unfound accusation as a way of avoiding my question. If you were a kid, which would you choose.
It doesn't matter what I would choose. If I'm a kid who doesn't have the brain capacity to choose, so what? We also don't choose our race, sexuality, arguably religion, and many other things. Is that enough to outright outlaw something? No.
 

darkcharizard58

Well-Known Member
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...-closure-after-Charity-Commission-ruling.html

Youre right now most of them are gone. you can see why people have problems with gays adopting. Several religious adoption agencies have closed because they were going to be forced to allow gay couples to adopt from them, which is violating there religious beliefs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6289301.stm

They want people to go against theyre beliefs, which i think we all can agree is wrong

It doesn't matter what I would choose. If I'm a kid who doesn't have the brain capacity to choose, so what? We also don't choose our race, sexuality, arguably religion, and many other things. Is that enough to outright outlaw something? No

Im fairly certain that kids have a big enough brain capacity to choose. And yes we dont choose those things that you mentioned (except for reilgion), but we arent given choices are we. And it does matter what you would choose, and i suspect that the reason you dont answer it is because you would choose the straight couple.
 
Last edited:

Ethan

Banned
That's because adoption is a state and government run matter, and it doesn't fall under religious duty. The government is secular, not affiliated with religion. If any particular religion wants to help out and create an orphanage, that's fine and good, but they have to follow the rules of the state. If the rule set out is "You can't deny adoption to gay couples" then so be it. Should we allow other exceptions for religiously affiliated orphanages just because they're religious? Can a religiously affiliated orphanage deny children to couples that are atheist? What about Muslim? Hindu? No, they can't. Because it's against the law. Under your logic they should though, because you don't believe the state should force anyone to do what they believe is wrong.

If you think it's wrong to adopt to gay couples, then don't start an orphanage and expect the state to conform to YOUR views. THAT's wrong. Not the other way around. Further more it's absolutely sickening and disgusting that an orphanage would sooner close down then adopt to a gay couple. That's stubbornness and spite if I ever saw it.

Anyways, good for the UK. They deserve to be closed down if they're so stubborn they'd rather close the whole orphanage then adopt to a gay couple.
 
Last edited:

Chris-kun

i still believe
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...-closure-after-Charity-Commission-ruling.html

Youre right now most of them are gone. you can see why people have problems with gays adopting. Several religious adoption agencies have closed because they were going to be forced to allow gay couples to adopt from them, which is violating there religious beliefs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6289301.stm

They want people to go against theyre beliefs, which i think we all can agree is wrong



Im fairly certain that kids have a big enough brain capacity to choose. And yes we dont choose those things that you mentioned (except for reilgion), but we arent given choices are we. And it does matter what you would choose, and i suspect that the reason you dont answer it is because you would choose the straight couple.

The UK doesn't have the same religious freedom rights as America. If it's not guaranteed in law, then there's no reason to protect the religious rights. In America religious rights are protected in writing, I'm not sure they are in the UK. Several European nations don't have it in writing, France comes to mind off the top of my head.
 

kaiser soze

Reading ADWD
my 2 cents:

- first, I recognize that people are gay and thats not going to change. while I will accept thats who you are, I will admit that I find homosexuality itself unnatural.
- marriage is a religious institution created by organized religion. therefore for government to marry people is an infringement on separation of church and state, and deciding who gets to marry is also outside of government's realm
- in general, marriage should be left to religion, not the government. that goes both ways (no pun intended). get back to me one the budget is balanced, then we can see if it is smart enough to speak on love
- I do realize that government needs some way to keep track of whos stuck to whom, for taxes, census, etc (marriage licensee)
- if you want to make a life commitment to someone who may or may not be of the opposite gender, I would like to see the "civil union" replace state-sanctioned marriage. it can be open to both straights and gays and it leaves marriage to religion, where it belongs
 

darkcharizard58

Well-Known Member
The UK doesn't have the same religious freedom rights as America. If it's not guaranteed in law, then there's no reason to protect the religious rights. In America religious rights are protected in writing, I'm not sure they are in the UK. Several European nations don't have it in writing, France comes to mind off the top of my head.

I understand that, i was trying to prove that adoption isnt always run by the state. But they are still being forced to do something that is against their religion. Thats just as bad as not letting gays marry in my opinion
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top