Rayman Pirate-Community

spiraldoor wrote: Edit: To clarify, the main reason I oppose gay marriage is that it gives equal status to heterosexual and homosexual couples, even though they clearly aren't equal.

Why not?

Because relationships between men and women are normal and natural and necessary for our survival, and is the reason why men and women exist. Homosexual relationships don't deserve the same status in my opinion.

I take it you're against marriage where one of the parts is infertile too, then?

spiraldoor wrote:I don't think I'm being fussy. Did you say that because you disagree with me?

Yes, I disagree with you. To be honest, I never expected you to be so narrow-minded. It's not like same-sex marriages influence your life directly, do they?

I feel sorry for gay people.. I understand it's hard for people to accept them, but taking their rights is just unfair. They can't help being gay after all.

spiraldoor wrote:Because relationships between men and women are normal and natural and necessary for our survival, and is the reason why men and women exist. Homosexual relationships don't deserve the same status in my opinion.

Well, a few homosexual couples might actually help us in our survival. You know, the population has risen quite alot. Teen pregnancies, Baby boomers (they are getting old now), for example. Trust me, we have enough babies to help us in our future. Or destroy us.

And who cares? Humans can be assholes anyways, so lets just care about ourselves. I don't care about humanity, I care about me, and the people I love.

But I'm not trying to change what you think or anything, just giving you my 2 cents of what I think.

Gay couples really are not slowing us down. Plus, women don't open there legs easily, and men shoot their sperm everywhere. There is NOOOO harm being done.

spiraldoor wrote:I think the gays should be happy that they have their civil partnerships, which are more than enough for them and fulfill every practical purpose that a marriage does.

What is the purpose of a marriage then ?

Oh man don't get me started on the baby boom. I know we need some birth rate worldwide but the way things are going in the UK at least is a joke.

DesLife wrote:

spiraldoor wrote:I think the gays should be happy that they have their civil partnerships, which are more than enough for them and fulfill every practical purpose that a marriage does.

What is the purpose of a marriage then ?

Gay couples might need it so that they can see their partner in a hospital, or some other shit I don't remember. I don't care about marriege though. Its always divorce this, half that.

StaceyW wrote:Oh man don't get me started on the baby boom. I know we need some birth rate worldwide but the way things are going in the UK at least is a joke.

Yeah, there virtually isn't a problem with baby production. The problem now, is how do we meet the needs of all these babies? Either way, when one problem gets solved another comes up. We just have to be able to think of a way to solve this problem.

Yeah, that's the point I made earlier. I mean, why can't you see your lover in the hospital? Aren't they the person that's supposed to care for you the most? That's inexcusable, regardless of sexual orientation.

Yeah, I don't know why. Its just like with war, that you kill in the name of whatever you believe in, and "its ok".

But yeah its not cool to keep people out like that. Why keep friends out too? Seriously.

Quickfist wrote:

spiraldoor wrote:I don't think I'm being fussy. Did you say that because you disagree with me?

Yes, I disagree with you. To be honest, I never expected you to be so narrow-minded. It's not like same-sex marriages influence your life directly, do they?

I feel sorry for gay people.. I understand it's hard for people to accept them, but taking their rights is just unfair. They can't help being gay after all.

Gay marriages influence the society of which I am a part, yes. I am not comfortable with them due to reasons which I expressed clearly above: heterosexual relationships can produce children, and homosexual ones can't; they do not deserve to be treated as if they were the exact same thing, because there is a huge difference. Please don't use faux-insults like 'narrow-minded' for people who you disagree with.

And while I can understand your 'they can't help it' perspective, it should be remembered that helplessness cannot be equated with justification; paedophiles didn't choose to be paedophiles, but that doesn't mean that they should have the same rights as normal people.

And I said nothing about 'taking their rights'. I don't believe that they should have a right to marry to begin with; we are merely discussing whether they should be given said right, not whether we should 'take' it away from them.

And yes, I feel sorry for them too.

Tobbe wrote:I take it you're against marriage where one of the parts is infertile too, then?

No, I think that infertile couples should be allowed to marry and adopt.

neo wrote:

DesLife wrote:

spiraldoor wrote:I think the gays should be happy that they have their civil partnerships, which are more than enough for them and fulfill every practical purpose that a marriage does.

What is the purpose of a marriage then ?

Gay couples might need it so that they can see their partner in a hospital, or some other shit I don't remember.

Civil partnerships already let gays see each other in hospital and leave shit to each other when they die, as far as I am aware. There is no need for a 'marriage', especially when there will be no children involved. And yes, I agree that friends should be allowed to visit you in hospital. Only letting close family in is bullshit.

Marriage should be a legal commitment which stops either party from walking out on their partner and children. I suppose it should make sure that both parents make a proper contribution to their children's life, both financially and emotionally. But these things should apply in any relationship, not just one that's been formalised with a piece of paper.

I wouldn't mind seeing marriage abolished altogether.

As for the discussion regarding birthrates: We should not be attempting to have less children if people in third-world countries are not doing the same.

spiraldoor wrote:

Tobbe wrote:I take it you're against marriage where one of the parts is infertile too, then?

No, I think that infertile couples should be allowed to marry and adopt.

So you think people shouldn't be allowed to marry unless they're planning on having children?

And homosexual couples are perfectly capable of adopting babies as well. Why are people against this, anyway? People's sexual orientation doesn't affect their parenting abilities, and studies suggest that children suffer no ill effects from being raised by homosexual parents. It seems to me that this idea that homosexuals aren't fit to raise children is based purely on prejudice and bigotry, because it sure as hell isn't based on any strong sociological evidence. If there was any such evidence homosexual adoption wouldn't be legal anywhere.

Tobbe wrote:So you think people shouldn't be allowed to marry unless they're planning on having children?

I don't think it should be disallowed, I just don't see what the purpose is.

Tobbe wrote:And homosexual couples are perfectly capable of adopting babies as well. Why are people against this, anyway? People's sexual orientation doesn't affect their parenting abilities, and studies suggest that children suffer no ill effects from being raised by homosexual parents. It seems to me that this idea that homosexuals aren't fit to raise children is based purely on prejudice and bigotry, because it sure as hell isn't based on any strong sociological evidence. If there was any such evidence homosexual adoption wouldn't be legal anywhere.

I think that it's cruel to allow a homosexual couple to adopt a child, because this either deprives a child of a mother or deprives it of a father. I'd imagine that the child would also be bullied in school and confused as to why their family is so different and all their friends have parents of another gender. I also think that single people should be disallowed from adopting, for the same reason. I think that infertile couples should find it easier to adopt than anyone else.

Why let a gay couple adopt a child when there are plenty of straight couples out there willing to raise them, so that they will grow up with parents of both genders? I don't think that anyone, if given the choice, would rather be brought up in a gay family.

And would you mind linking to the studies on children brought up by homosexual couples? It sounds interesting.

Tobbe wrote:If there was any such evidence homosexual adoption wouldn't be legal anywhere.

No disrespect, but I think that's a poor argument. Just because something is legal somewhere doesn't mean that it's right, as your own opposition to the death penalty will no doubt attest.

spiraldoor wrote: And would you mind linking to the studies on children brought up by homosexual couples? It sounds interesting.

Here's an overview of some of the studies. If you want more you can check out their references or search the web yourself: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_pare2.htm

This is the summary presented at the start of the article above:

With the exception of studies at a few universities with very close connections with conservative Christian denominations (like the Brigham Young University in Provo, UT), essentially all research studies into same-sex parenting reveal that children of these families develop normally. There is some indication that boys are less sexually adventuresome, and that girls are more sexually daring. There are also anecdotal accounts of children having to endure ridicule, taunting and harassment from other youth because of their parents' sexual orientation.

As for the death penalty thing: The 'eye for an eye' method of punishment is biologically built into all humans, and so the deafault position for most cultures is to have a death sentence for certain types of crime. The death penalty has been abolished in most western countries (the US being an exception) as evidence has shown that it's a cruel and pointless form of punishment. The deafault position on homosexuality in cultures built around the desert god is to kill anyone who practices it. In the same way, as new evidence has come in over the years, that law has been changed. So you're wrong: This argument could just as easily be applied to the death penalty debate (although it doesn't fit that debate that well). Because in both cases, the law has been changed because of evidence.

I don't think its cruel to have a gay couple adopt a child. Why deny such happiness to two people because of who they like? Oh religion this religion that. Fuck that.

Why let a gay couple adopt a child when there are plenty of straight couples out there willing to raise them, so that they will grow up with parents of both genders? I don't think that anyone, if given the choice, would rather be brought up in a gay family.

Well, two straight people can make their own. Can't make their own, then they should adopt. Who says you have to have a male parent? Some kids don't have them because their dad just left. How about them? Oh too bad? Nah. That don't cut it.

My father is old. So that meant less play time with him. I don't remember playing anything with him. Did he teach me anything? I don't know. I know he worked really hard and all that shit, but he never taught me anything about cars. When I was helping him with stuff like that, I was only the "Hey can you hand me the _______" ; -;

spiraldoor wrote:

Tobbe wrote:So you think people shouldn't be allowed to marry unless they're planning on having children?

I don't think it should be disallowed, I just don't see what the purpose is. [...]
There is no need for a 'marriage', especially when there will be no children involved.
I wouldn't mind seeing marriage abolished altogether.

There's no need for it so they should'nt have this right ? Come on, this is ridiculous. There's no need for marriage for anyone, civil partnerships can provide everyone with all they need, so what's the difference between marriage and civil partnership ? Apart from the symbolic side, I don't see any. What is the purpose of disallowing gay people to marry then ?

spiraldoor wrote:And while I can understand your 'they can't help it' perspective, it should be remembered that helplessness cannot be equated with justification; paedophiles didn't choose to be paedophiles, but that doesn't mean that they should have the same rights as normal people.

Are you saying that being different means you can't have the same rights as anyone ?...

spiraldoor wrote:And I said nothing about 'taking their rights'. I don't believe that they should have a right to marry to begin with; we are merely discussing whether they should be given said right, not whether we should 'take' it away from them.

Why would anyone has the right to marriage whereas others don't ? What exactly gives you the right to marry, is that your sexuality, your way of life ? That doesn't make any sense.

Society is just not read yet for gay adoption. Seriously that would be hell for the kids at school

Let's hope it is, because it's already legal here and in the rest of the Nordic countries. Time will show.

In general people from the Nordic countries are a lot more open-minded but imagine this in Poland or in the US

If a child doesn't have a female parent then it wouldn't benefit from the unique motherly chemistry other kids get. Also mothers are generally better at basically teaching the child its right and wrongs, et cetera, so having gay "parents" could decelerate cognitive development.

But in my eyes there's nothing wrong with gay marriage. Homosexuality is socially accepted as a characteristic now, not a difference.