This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
Do you agree with Same-sex marriage?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by XcitingStuart
I know.
You give an explanation so your views can be criticised, and you can culture and develop your views.
Oh I feel for humanity, so few people actually want to develop their characters and intellectual capacity.
The point, evidence, and explain was just saying a general 3 things you should hope to achieve when making a post, like in a debate.
You give an explanation so your views can be criticised, and you can culture and develop your views.
Oh I feel for humanity, so few people actually want to develop their characters and intellectual capacity.
The point, evidence, and explain was just saying a general 3 things you should hope to achieve when making a post, like in a debate.
ok then. marriage is to make a family . have kids. and the generation keeps on. on the other hand you can't have kids. can't have a family . so no need for same-sex marriage.
by the way you misspelled criticized ...
Original post by XcitingStuart
The very act of not voting in favour of e.g. same-sex marriage helps prevent them from being allowed to get married, hence prevents them from just getting on with their lives.
Very few people realise this.
Though abstaining as opposed to voting against can be an admirable position.
That's why I say you discriminate (or help discriminate to be semantic.)(Or contribute to the discrimination.)
I know no one who truly adopts the "live and let live" principle for reasons like these.
Because if you agreed with "live and let live", you'd vote in favour of allowance even if you personally disagree with it.
And this can be applied to so many situations outside of those about homosexuality.
But thanks for not supporting things like riots against them, and the unconditional love you say you hold, I suppose.
Very few people realise this.
Though abstaining as opposed to voting against can be an admirable position.
That's why I say you discriminate (or help discriminate to be semantic.)(Or contribute to the discrimination.)
I know no one who truly adopts the "live and let live" principle for reasons like these.
Because if you agreed with "live and let live", you'd vote in favour of allowance even if you personally disagree with it.
And this can be applied to so many situations outside of those about homosexuality.
But thanks for not supporting things like riots against them, and the unconditional love you say you hold, I suppose.
I see your point, but do people really have to be married to be able to get on with their lives?
I can't stop gay people from marrying, but I don't have to support it, and they can't demand a church, or anyone, to marry them, if they do not support it. This applies for all marriages, homosexual or heterosexual.
Original post by Amankhanhussain
ok then. marriage is to make a family . have kids. and the generation keeps on. on the other hand you can't have kids. can't have a family . so no need for same-sex marriage.
by the way you misspelled criticized ...
by the way you misspelled criticized ...
No, criticise is the English spelling and criticize is the American English spelling. Good point though.
Original post by Amankhanhussain
ok then. marriage is to make a family . have kids. and the generation keeps on. on the other hand you can't have kids. can't have a family . so no need for same-sex marriage.
by the way you misspelled criticized ...
by the way you misspelled criticized ...
You're giving me a panic attack... how dare you!?! How dare you criticise my spelling! My spelling is valid, and it's the British one, not the bastardisation by Americans! The panic attack's due to the disgust I feel right now, and that your point is beneath my dignity.
Get the hell off this British, student forum if you try to use that to attack me!
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by The_Internet
No
Gay marriage is an abomination against God. It's not the natural order of things. We never had this "gay problem" until the 50's. It's a liberal western plot, to try and make people think they're gay. Not even animals are like this. It is wrong and should never be allowed.
We should take all gay people and take them to the highest tower in the land, from where they can be pushed off.
Gay marriage is an abomination against God. It's not the natural order of things. We never had this "gay problem" until the 50's. It's a liberal western plot, to try and make people think they're gay. Not even animals are like this. It is wrong and should never be allowed.
We should take all gay people and take them to the highest tower in the land, from where they can be pushed off.
Spoiler
Are you a recruiting sergeant for ISIS?
Original post by XcitingStuart
You're giving me a panic attack... how dare you!?! How dare you criticise my spelling! My spelling is valid, and it's the British one, not the bastardisation by Americans! The panic attack's due to the disgust I feel right now, and that your point is beneath my dignity.
Get the hell off this British, student forum if you try to use that to attack me!
Get the hell off this British, student forum if you try to use that to attack me!
I'm kinda torn here because I'm half English and half American...
Both spellings are right okay - XcitingStuart;61342343 is right.
Original post by Amankhanhussain
ok then. marriage is to make a family . have kids. and the generation keeps on. on the other hand you can't have kids. can't have a family . so no need for same-sex marriage.
So by that rationale the millions of heterosexual married couples around the world that either chose not have children or are simply unable to do so should have their marriages declared null and void?
Original post by XcitingStuart
You're giving me a panic attack... how dare you!?! How dare you criticise my spelling! My spelling is valid, and it's the British one, not the bastardisation by Americans! The panic attack's due to the disgust I feel right now, and that your point is beneath my dignity.
Get the hell off this British, student forum if you try to use that to attack me!
Get the hell off this British, student forum if you try to use that to attack me!
oh . you gonna kiss your mother with that mouth.
Original post by Howard
So by that rationale the millions of heterosexual married couples around the world that either chose not have children or are simply unable to do so should have their marriages declared null and void?
the point is they can . the heterosexual ca. and the homosexual can't .
Original post by FollowingJC24/7
No, criticise is the English spelling and criticize is the American English spelling. Good point though.
thanks for the precious info.
Original post by Howard
Are you a recruiting sergeant for ISIS?
Yes
Original post by Amankhanhussain
the point is they can . the heterosexual ca. and the homosexual can't .
The point is that NOT ALL heterosexuals can and/or choose to. Your premise is that the sole purpose of marriage is to "have kids" so I'll ask you again - are those marriages that fail to produce offspring invalid?
And, I'll ask you this; - since when was marriage needed to have children? Christian marriage as we know it today only started in 1184 at the Council of Verona. Did nobody produce children for the 100,000 odd years of man's existence prior to this time?
Original post by Howard
The point is that NOT ALL heterosexuals can and/or choose to. Your premise is that the sole purpose of marriage is to "have kids" so I'll ask you again - are those marriages that fail to produce offspring invalid?
And, I'll ask you this; - since when was marriage needed to have children? Christian marriage as we know it today only started in 1184 at the Council of Verona. Did nobody produce children for the 100,000 odd years of man's existence prior to this time?
And, I'll ask you this; - since when was marriage needed to have children? Christian marriage as we know it today only started in 1184 at the Council of Verona. Did nobody produce children for the 100,000 odd years of man's existence prior to this time?
Many jews don't support same-sex marriage.
Also, on a human level, irrespective of religious belief, it is much better for the kid if you're married first, as it means that you are usually less likely to split up. This means the kid will most likely live with married parents, which on the whole is usually a lot better for them. The child should come first.
Marriages without offspring are not invalid, of course, it often just makes more sense for people to be able to have kids if they want to, and they can only do this if they are with a partner of the opposite sex. If you want to have kids, unless you are an adulterer or adopt, you have to be in a heterosexual relationship.
Original post by IBIB
well as a muslim, id say no, as the quaran teaches us that you get stoned to death for doing so. There is no but allah, mohammed is his messenger
If that's the sort of thing the Qu'ran teaches you why not put it down a grab a telephone directory or a Yellow Pages - you'll find more wisdom in it.
Original post by FollowingJC24/7
Many jews don't support same-sex marriage.
Also, on a human level, irrespective of religious belief, it is much better for the kid if you're married first, as it means that you are usually less likely to split up. This means the kid will most likely live with married parents, which on the whole is usually a lot better for them. The child should come first.
Marriages without offspring are not invalid, of course, it often just makes more sense for people to be able to have kids if they want to, and they can only do this if they are with a partner of the opposite sex. If you want to have kids, unless you are an adulterer or adopt, you have to be in a heterosexual relationship.
Also, on a human level, irrespective of religious belief, it is much better for the kid if you're married first, as it means that you are usually less likely to split up. This means the kid will most likely live with married parents, which on the whole is usually a lot better for them. The child should come first.
Marriages without offspring are not invalid, of course, it often just makes more sense for people to be able to have kids if they want to, and they can only do this if they are with a partner of the opposite sex. If you want to have kids, unless you are an adulterer or adopt, you have to be in a heterosexual relationship.
I don't care what many Jews do or don't support. And I'm not here arguing about the merits or benefits of marriage as a family arrangement within which children might be better raised.
Let's stick to the point. The only reason put to me so far as to why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry is that the purpose of marriage is to have kids. Says who? Evidently untrue as millions don't or can't.
I don't understand why people would be against it. If you don't like same-sex marriages, don't get one. Doesn't mean you should be a nuisance to other people and be against them living their life separately to yours?
Original post by Amankhanhussain
the point is they can . the heterosexual ca. and the homosexual can't .
So, you'd ban marriage for heterosexual couples past childbearing age, then? If a woman is, say, 45 or 50 or more, she can't have children any more, so she shouldn't be able to get married to a man? Is that your argument?
Original post by Howard
If that's the sort of thing the Qu'ran teaches you why not put it down a grab a telephone directory or a Yellow Pages - you'll find more wisdom in it.
May be above their reading level
Original post by IBIB
well as a muslim, id say no, as the quaran teaches us that you get stoned to death for doing so. There is no but allah, mohammed is his messenger
Which Quran are you reading? There is not a single passage in the Quran that advocates stoning as a punishment.
Original post by Perpetual Shoah
Because we care about wider society and especially the fate of the future generation.
Homosexuals are more likely to be paedophiles and more likely to abuse their children.
Homosexuals are more likely to be paedophiles and more likely to abuse their children.
Can I have some reliable statistics to supports these assertions?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by The Epicurean
Can I have some reliable statistics to supports these assertions?
https://www.google.co.uk/ - Even Jewish owned companies can help you get those statistics.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
