Homosexual marriage very unethical.

[Ravi]

I almost hate to break it to you, but marriage is defined in more ways than one already.

3: an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry — J. T. Shawcross

And even though I get what you are saying, I think it's nonsense. Marriage is a verb. Black people and white people are nouns.

If it's so special, why is it so easy to get out of? It's just a friggin legal contract, or a ceremony in a church. Society isn't going to fall apart if more people are dedicated to each other.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, Ravi. "Marriage" is a noun.
dictionary.com
mar·riage &#8211;noun 1. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
2. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
3. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of a man and woman to live as husband and wife, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage.
4. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage; homosexual marriage.
5. any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song.
6. a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7. a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
8. Cards. a meld of the king and queen of a suit, as in pinochle. Compare royal marriage.
9. a piece of antique furniture assembled from components of two or more authentic pieces.
10. Obsolete. the formal declaration or contract by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.

 

[Nemo Securus]

What if a man marries someone who was formerly a man, but is now a woman?

 

[Ravi]

Okay, fine.

I still don't see the big deal. It's still just a word. It's the commitment that matters, not what it's called.

I'm perfectly okay with the government sanctioning civil unions and churches sanctioning marriage. It wouldn't make a difference to my relationship. And whatever you call it, people are still going to refer to it as marriage.

 

[Ravi]

What if a man marries someone who was formerly a man, but is now a woman?

 

[Nemo Securus]

NO nemosecurus, You are the Sinfull deviant,trying to make it seem that something is wrong with us who speake out againts this perverted insane sick
behavior called Homosexuality. It really irks me when you Homo supporter try
to legitimatize this weird useless selfish lifestyle,that by the way is a crime in
many countries of the World,who see the abnormality in Homosexuality, and have moved to ban it form their society.We have no contradictions here,the contradictions are only in your twisted Homo sympathizer mind.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Whats so selfish about someone being in love with another human being? In some countries its a crime for a woman to show more than her eyes through her clothing. In North Carolina it is a crime to plow your field with an Elephant...How are other laws relevant to this one? How have I contradicted my self in my comment that you quoted exactly?

 

[random3434]

Kindly point me to a post of mine where I've ever gone into a homophobic, paranoid rant.

Uh, Dude, I wasn't talking about YOUR posts, I thought you knew that. I was COMPLEMENTING you.

 

[random3434]

What if a man marries someone who was formerly a man, but is now a woman?

Along those lines, how about the woman who became a man and gave birth to a child?

 

[Nemo Securus]

It's not about caring what people do, or whether or not the state recognizes their union. It's about bastardizing the term "marriage" which describes a union between a MAN and a WOMAN and forcing people to include same sex unions in the definition. It's watering down the definition.

Let gays have their own definition for gay unions, and let the state recognize them fi they like.... but marriage is the term for a man and a woman.

And forcing people to accept gays into the terminology is a way of watering down distinctions. Which is a problem. Two men getting married is not the same as a man and a woman getting married, and the language should reflect it.

So it's fine for them to "unite" but not marry? Im sure obtaining a title is not their overall goal so they would probably be fine with not calling it marriage. So essentially what your saying is they can wed just can't call it marriage. Fine. Seems pointless to argue over then, to me. Isn't the whole American idea a bit watered down now anyway? Basically in much simpler terms
your opinion is "I don't want none of them there gay words in my dictionary." Brilliant!!!!! I bet two men came up with the word's meaning to begin with haha. And we are, by the way, discussing the diction of a society that uses the words hot, cool, bad, sweet and sick to describe something they find interesting or likeable. Sometimes words have more than one use. Maybe you can capitalize when using marriage for a man and woman or use an asterisk for gays haha.

 

[52ndStreet]

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. Whats so selfish about someone being in love with another human being? In some countries its a crime for a woman to show more than her eyes through her clothing. In North Carolina it is a crime to plow your field with an Elephant...How are other laws relevant to this one? How have I contradicted my self in my comment that you quoted exactly?

Homosexuality is selfish,because they do not produce any biological children
from the Homosexual relationship.You contradict yourself by saying we heterosexuals, are sin full for admonishing homosexuality as being wrong.
There is no way to sugar coat, or to gloss over the immoral act that is homosexuality.America must move to eventually ban Homosexuality.
Otherwise the social fabric of America will eventually be destroyed.

 

[random3434]

Homosexuality is selfish,because they do not produce any biological children
from the Homosexual relationship.You contradict yourself by saying we heterosexuals, are sin full for admonishing homosexuality as being wrong.
There is no way to sugar coat, or to gloss over the immoral act that is homosexuality.America must move to eventually ban Homosexuality.
Otherwise the social fabric of America will eventually be destroyed.

I'm sure you have been asked this question before, but what about straight couples who can't have/don't want children? Is that selfish? What about homosexual partners who adopt? Are they not a family then?

A lot of gay people want the right to be married so they can have the same benifits as straight people. I have some gay friends who have been together longer than a lot of my straight friends. They are COMMITED to each other, and love each other.


How do you see someone loving another as immoral?

 

[52ndStreet]

I'm sure you have been asked this question before, but what about straight couples who can't have/don't want children? Is that selfish? What about homosexual partners who adopt? Are they not a family then?

A lot of gay people want the right to be married so they can have the same benifits as straight people. I have some gay friends who have been together longer than a lot of my straight friends. They are COMMITED to each other, and love each other.


How do you see someone loving another as immoral?

There is no way you can try to compare an infertile heterosexual couple,to
a homosexual deviant couple,they are not selfish! ,the male or the female in
the infertile heterosexual couple have a biological predisposition,that is preventing them from producing offspring.And Homosexuals who adopt,may
be doing more harm,by allowing a impressionable child to be exposed to homosexuality.Thus, facilitating the destruction of the family structure.

 

[AllieBaba]

Gays already get all the "rights" married couple have. All they have to do is make a will, and they're covered. Not being able to be married does not prevent them from the "rights" of married couples.

 

[Ravi]

What about fertile heterosexual couples that don't have kids? Are they selfish as well or do you want to show up on their doorsteps and force them to procreate?

 

[Ravi]

Gays already get all the "rights" married couple have. All they have to do is make a will, and they're covered. Not being able to be married does not prevent them from the "rights" of married couples.

They don't have the tax benefits, do they? Or the right to attend their lover's death? We had a recent case where a lesbian couple, one of them dying, was denied spending their final hours together because, as they were told, "Florida isn't a gay state."

You might be a jerk, Allie, but I can't believe you'd be so cold-hearted as to support such stupidity.

 

[AllieBaba]

They don't have the tax benefits, do they? Or the right to attend their lover's death? We had a recent case where a lesbian couple, one of them dying, was denied spending their final hours together because, as they were told, "Florida isn't a gay state."

You might be a jerk, Allie, but I can't believe you'd be so cold-hearted as to support such stupidity.

What tax benefits are you talking about, exactly?

And there is no law which dictates who can be with whom at a person's death bed. My guess is the family said they didn't want the person there and neither you nor I have any idea how or why that went down. But it isn't because they weren't married.

 

[Ravi]

What tax benefits are you talking about, exactly?

And there is no law which dictates who can be with whom at a person's death bed. My guess is the family said they didn't want the person there and neither you nor I have any idea how or why that went down. But it isn't because they weren't married.

They were married in another state. The only family was the two moms and the kids. One of them had an anuerism while on vacation and the hospital wouldn't let the kids or the significant other hold her hand while she died.

 

[Nemo Securus]

Homosexuality is selfish,because they do not produce any biological children
from the Homosexual relationship.You contradict yourself by saying we heterosexuals, are sin full for admonishing homosexuality as being wrong.
There is no way to sugar coat, or to gloss over the immoral act that is homosexuality.America must move to eventually ban Homosexuality.
Otherwise the social fabric of America will eventually be destroyed.

So heterosexual people don't have sex for pleasure? Im straight and I will have to say I enjoy sex quite well. I didn't say heterosexuals were SINFUL (one word), although everyone is a sinner by Christian standards. Social fabric of America went out the window long ago my friend. It's laughable to think America is on some moral high ground isn't it? At least gays aren't having abortions.

 

[random3434]

At least gays aren't having abortions.

Oh snap!

 

[52ndStreet]

So heterosexual people don't have sex for pleasure? Im straight and I will have to say I enjoy sex quite well. I didn't say heterosexuals were SINFUL (one word), although everyone is a sinner by Christian standards. Social fabric of America went out the window long ago my friend. It's laughable to think America is on some moral high ground isn't it? At least gays aren't having abortions.

Straight people are supposed to have sex for pleasure and procreation.Homosexual sex is abnormal.Men were created for Women, and
Women created for men.End of story.America had a moral high ground,but lost it with all this homosexual marriage legislation.