Catholic church oppose gay marriage
Discussion
mattnunn said:
MR MOTORVATOR, why not just do us all a favour and tell the truth, this isn't about the meaning of the word marriage, or religion, it's about you fearing the fact you're wrong. Just be honest, mtfu, and admit you've a prblem with gays, so we can tell you how wrong you are.
IMO if someone is "male" that's fine.IMO if someone is "female" that's fine.
IMO if someone is "gay" that's fine.
IMO if someone is "married" that's fine.
But IMO it makes no more sense for someone to claim to be both "gay and married" (to a same sex partner) than it does for someone to claim to be both "male and female". IMO marriage is for heterosexuals. If gay people want to have something of their own that's fine, but it's simply not the same.
MOTORVATOR said:
I only posted that to wind you up. I'm happy that procreation will remain for the time being as a physical impossibility for a gay couple.
Again already happens. Gay man sperm for lesbian couples. Upto the invention of IVF/sperm donors it has taken hetro's to make the gays! ;-)Ozzie Osmond said:
mattnunn said:
MR MOTORVATOR, why not just do us all a favour and tell the truth, this isn't about the meaning of the word marriage, or religion, it's about you fearing the fact you're wrong. Just be honest, mtfu, and admit you've a prblem with gays, so we can tell you how wrong you are.
IMO if someone is "male" that's fine.IMO if someone is "female" that's fine.
IMO if someone is "gay" that's fine.
IMO if someone is "married" that's fine.
But IMO it makes no more sense for someone to claim to be both "gay and married" (to a same sex partner) than it does for someone to claim to be both "male and female". IMO marriage is for heterosexuals. If gay people want to have something of their own that's fine, but it's simply not the same.
PS I think someone just burst a blood vessel up there.^^^^
djstevec said:
MOTORVATOR said:
I only posted that to wind you up. I'm happy that procreation will remain for the time being as a physical impossibility for a gay couple.
Again already happens. Gay man sperm for lesbian couples. Upto the invention of IVF/sperm donors it has taken hetro's to make the gays! ;-)Ozzie Osmond said:
mattnunn said:
MR MOTORVATOR, why not just do us all a favour and tell the truth, this isn't about the meaning of the word marriage, or religion, it's about you fearing the fact you're wrong. Just be honest, mtfu, and admit you've a prblem with gays, so we can tell you how wrong you are.
IMO if someone is "male" that's fine.IMO if someone is "female" that's fine.
IMO if someone is "gay" that's fine.
IMO if someone is "married" that's fine.
But IMO it makes no more sense for someone to claim to be both "gay and married" (to a same sex partner) than it does for someone to claim to be both "male and female". IMO marriage is for heterosexuals. If gay people want to have something of their own that's fine, but it's simply not the same.
Ozzie Osmond said:
IMO if someone is "male" that's fine.
IMO if someone is "female" that's fine.
IMO if someone is "gay" that's fine.
IMO if someone is "married" that's fine.
Well I'm glad that matches the ozzie seal of approval, well done.IMO if someone is "female" that's fine.
IMO if someone is "gay" that's fine.
IMO if someone is "married" that's fine.
Ozzie Osmond said:
But IMO it makes no more sense for someone to claim to be both "gay and married" (to a same sex partner) than it does for someone to claim to be both "male and female". IMO marriage is for heterosexuals. If gay people want to have something of their own that's fine, but it's simply not the same.
well your opinion is wrong, it's a f
king word st for brains, get over it, you don't accept the ideal of equality of expression of love bewtween people of the same sex, you're arguing a point of semantics to try and back yourself up, but your offensive opinion is pretty obvious. you are wrong.Marf said:
Would you like to discuss my answer to your question with regards to why three way marriage is illegal? Or perhaps you might like to offer your opinion on why it's not legal?
You have answered nothing, explained nothing, tried to face in all directions at once.I say two partner marriage simply a social norm and the social norm is one man and one woman.
You say the norm should be fundamentally changed to include two men/women. I disagree, because that devalues the concept of marriage IMO to the same extent as would be the case if marriage included threesomes. Both these changes would IMO be equally inconsistent with the basic concept of "marriage".
MOTORVATOR said:
djstevec said:
MOTORVATOR said:
I only posted that to wind you up. I'm happy that procreation will remain for the time being as a physical impossibility for a gay couple.
Again already happens. Gay man sperm for lesbian couples. Upto the invention of IVF/sperm donors it has taken hetro's to make the gays! ;-)Do you think they will produce even gayer babies then hetrosexuals have done?? Or maybe just more open minded and accepting straight ones?
Ozzie Osmond said:
You have answered nothing, explained nothing, tried to face in all directions at once.
I say two partner marriage simply a social norm and the social norm is one man and one woman.
You say the norm should be fundamentally changed to include two men/women. I disagree, because that devalues the concept of marriage IMO to the same extent as would be the case if marriage included threesomes. Both these changes would IMO be equally inconsistent with the basic concept of "marriage".
Fair enough Ozzie, we'll have to agree to disagree champ, no change there then I say two partner marriage simply a social norm and the social norm is one man and one woman.
You say the norm should be fundamentally changed to include two men/women. I disagree, because that devalues the concept of marriage IMO to the same extent as would be the case if marriage included threesomes. Both these changes would IMO be equally inconsistent with the basic concept of "marriage".
MOTORVATOR said:
"I dont think it is right that gay couples should be entitled to get married because the terminology is not appropriate to the act in the same way that the term procreation requires the presence of a male and a female, and because if that term was also altered it would have a negative impact on our species methods of reproduction"
Are you just joking now?Edited by MOTORVATOR on Monday 5th March 22:09
Terminology? Your aversion to gay marriage is due to being a stickler for dictionary definitions? Honestly?
And do you really believe that if gay people got married then heterosexual people would stop having children?
Jesus. Im genuinely amazed that you can string a sentence together
djstevec said:
MOTORVATOR said:
djstevec said:
MOTORVATOR said:
I only posted that to wind you up. I'm happy that procreation will remain for the time being as a physical impossibility for a gay couple.
Again already happens. Gay man sperm for lesbian couples. Upto the invention of IVF/sperm donors it has taken hetro's to make the gays! ;-)Do you think they will produce even gayer babies then hetrosexuals have done?? Or maybe just more open minded and accepting straight ones?
I also think there are plenty enough family units to keep our species going to also avoid single parent families or designer babies.
Maybe that's just me being old fashioned but once you start over the line then you become ever closer to designer clones which I think would a shame for the human race.
There you go.
blindswelledrat said:
MOTORVATOR said:
"I dont think it is right that gay couples should be entitled to get married because the terminology is not appropriate to the act in the same way that the term procreation requires the presence of a male and a female, and because if that term was also altered it would have a negative impact on our species methods of reproduction"
Are you just joking now?Edited by MOTORVATOR on Monday 5th March 22:09
Terminology? Your aversion to gay marriage is due to being a stickler for dictionary definitions? Honestly?
And do you really believe that if gay people got married then heterosexual people would stop having children?
Jesus. Im genuinely amazed that you can string a sentence together
mattnunn said:
Seriously stop the fking bus for a minute...
As we speak there are adolescent kids up and down the country, not to mention fully grown adults, suffering in their lives, commiting suicide in some cases, because they feel society doesn't support and respect their need and desires for love. Simple basic human right to be able to openly express their love for other people on an equal basis.
And the best argument you fkwits can come up with to enforce this social stigma and apartheid system of rights is "Tradition" and argument over the meanings of words.
When the fk will people realise that it's okay not to offend people, you don't have to be a , the sun will rise tomorrow if you're nice to people instead of being a vile hate filled cock, it's okay to say c'est la vie. Let it go, get on with your own boring little lifes and stop tyring to fk with other peoples.
You're wrong about this, you've lost the argument, you lost the argument in 1967, it's just taken 25 years to penetrate your thick fking skull.
1967 to 2012 = 25 years ?king bus for a minute...As we speak there are adolescent kids up and down the country, not to mention fully grown adults, suffering in their lives, commiting suicide in some cases, because they feel society doesn't support and respect their need and desires for love. Simple basic human right to be able to openly express their love for other people on an equal basis.
And the best argument you f
kwits can come up with to enforce this social stigma and apartheid system of rights is "Tradition" and argument over the meanings of words.When the f
k will people realise that it's okay not to offend people, you don't have to be a , the sun will rise tomorrow if you're nice to people instead of being a vile hate filled cock, it's okay to say c'est la vie. Let it go, get on with your own boring little lifes and stop tyring to fk with other peoples.You're wrong about this, you've lost the argument, you lost the argument in 1967, it's just taken 25 years to penetrate your thick f
king skull.Anyway, I oppose gay marrage, because I do, nothing to do with any church.
Homosexuality is like any other mental illness, difficult to treat, and even more difficult to understand if you don't suffer from it.
So fook off with your self righteous crap ....... ok ?
Guam said:
^^^^^^
This I dont understan what any ones problem is, their belief structure in their churches, their rules surely?
Isnt that why Registry offices exist?
So you can dispense with the Religous stuff and just get the job done?
Go to a registry office end of problem!
This exactly. Its a scandal to force them to go against what they believe in the name of being politically correct.This I dont understan what any ones problem is, their belief structure in their churches, their rules surely?
Isnt that why Registry offices exist?
So you can dispense with the Religous stuff and just get the job done?
Go to a registry office end of problem!
Edited by Tallbut Buxomly on Tuesday 6th March 00:36
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff