Gay marriage/Equal rights

I won't post much of my thoughts until after you.

Edit by MarioMaster1337:

Just going to explain a little more on the subject here, basically what do you think of gay/lesbian marriage? Should they have the same rights as people who are straight, and be allowed to marry?

Yes. Simple.

There is one person on the internet I know of that says "gays are unnatural, disgusting things" and that "They aren't human, or men, they aren't equal, that why the United States government doesn't let them. Do you mean to tell me you have a better opinion then the United States government??" (Half the people in the world do, just look at the United Kingdom) That reminds me SNESkelly, what are the gay rights laws of Britain? I wholeheartedly disagree with these quotes.

I say no but that's just my opinion.

shotguhn wrote:That reminds me SNESkelly, what are the gay rights laws of Britain?

The law is now as such that their rights are identical to heterosexuals (with the SLIGHT exception of marriage, which is currently called "civil partnership", and incurs the exact same benefits as marriage), including serving in the armed forces. Discrimination on grounds of sexuality is illegal, and we accept asylum seekers on grounds of danger due to discrimination on sexual orientation.
Basically, we know what's going on. It's actually amazing that the "leading" country of the world hasn't sorted its shit out yet. And incredibly disappointing.

TatteredTime wrote:I say no but that's just my opinion.

Reasons?

SNESkelly wrote:"It's actually amazing that the "leading" country of the world hasn't sorted its shit out yet. And incredibly disappointing.

I'm sorry, thought you said Britain had it sorted out. Oh, you meant America? When did we become the "leading country"?? We are in an economical decline, your money is twice as strong as ours, and your country isn't full of people who suck. (Except that Prince William, he be fishy.)

It's true that Americans lack a certain character that the British has, but they make up for it by sitting on a huge mound of natural resources - thus becoming a leading economic power (everyone owes them money, and for good reason).
A large portion of the ridiculous conservatism of America is because of some damned bible-bashing citizens and a ridiculously structured 2-party political system, who mainly define themselves by binary opposition.

Really? Is that why we owe China trillions of dollars? Everything in America, even the chair I'm sitting in and the keyboard I'm using right now were made in China. and again, as I said, we are in an economic decline, both the British pound and the euro eat American money for breakfast.

Okay... the topic is derailing, get back on topic.

Want more opinions? About what? Who in their right mind would oppose a "happy" marriage. =P For that IS what gay means. Change the topic to "Homosexual Marriage" and then we'll talk. XD

MrSethGodSOURCE wrote:Want more opinions? About what? Who in their right mind would oppose a "happy" marriage. =P For that IS what gay means. Change the topic to "Homosexual Marriage" and then we'll talk. XD

If we're living in the 1920s then let's call it faggot marriage instead.

But in regards to the china/USA situation, it's far more complicated than that.
USA doesn't actually need to pay China off. What are the Chinese going to do? If they weaken the US, the dollar becomes worth less and then they are getting worthless money. What should they do, invade? Take the value of 2 trillion dollars? Of course not. That will simply never happen. So they're in an endless stalemate... for the moment.
And the USA could pay this off... if they had all the money that they were owed by the listless other countries. But when you lend to countries like Greece, you're not likely to get it back too soon.
Basically, everyone is sharing everyone's money, except if you're at the bottom of the pile, where you're taking and will never give anything back.

Okay then Seth, what are your opinions on HOMOSEXUAL marriage??

Also, SNESkelly, I don't believe gay has been used that way since the 1890's, not 1920, and Tattered never gave his reason for a no-homo based system??

shotguhn wrote:and tattered neve gave his reason for a no-homo based system??

I could guess a few reasons he might have. Honestly I don't like sharing my opinion on the matter of homosexuality because in reality I have nothing against homosexuality but my view on it would offend people.

To be honest for me to go in depth with what I think of this subject, I would have to first go in depth with what I think about love in general and that is a topic some people do not feel comfortable with because I can have pretty depressing or realist views. For example, I am one who kinda doesn't see the point to "marriage" in general, so I would have to elaborate on that before delving deeper into the matter of different classifications of marriage.

I take the same kind of view, not about marriage but I mean, I support homosexual rights, but I don't know any gay people, (I know some bisexual women, but that's another story) nor do I care to, if I do, whatever, if not, whatever.

shotguhn wrote:Also, SNESkelly, I don't believe gay has been used that way since the 1890's, not 1920, and Tattered never gave his reason for a no-homo based system??

"That was what the Civil War was all about. Abraham Lincoln was a faggot. He was in love with General Grant. So was Jefferson Davis. Lincoln just freed the slaves on a bet."
- The Sun Also Rises (1926) - Ernest Hemingway

This is one of the funniest lines in any book I have ever read. If you haven't read it yet, do so right now.

Sorry for the late reply..... >.>

Anyways; I'm a huge supporter of equal rights and gay marriage. To me it's a just a natural thing, if your in love (or just like them) with someone then you are. It's fairly simple and I don't see why everyone get's all worked up over it, it's not your problem if a guy wants to marry a guy or two girls are dating. If you don't like it then just be respectful and chill out, you don't need to run around spouting nonesense about it being 'unnatural'.

Sorry if I'm a bit blunt but I have a lot of friends (and even a family member) who are homosexual and some of them have been treated really cruelly just because of their sexuality which is just rediculous. It doesn't make a difference to me, all of them are still my friends and I care about them- regardless of sexuality. That's my opinion though, I know some people aren't nearly as comfortable around homosexual people (for various reasons) however that doesn't mean that they should be rude or cruel and to think that's okay to disscriminate against someone just because of their sexuality is plain wrong.
That is all I have to say for now, I guess.

You might have different reactions when walking in school you see homosexuals making out in plain daylight of the hallway

I don't get weirded out when I see straight couples making out. What's the difference?
I guess what i'm trying to say is; it's not gross or weird. It's natural. People are homosexual. It's a fact of life and we shouldn't treat them any differently then we treat straight people. So what if they were making out in the halls? I bet no one freaks out when a straight couple makes out, so why should they when a homosexual couple makes out?

See the thing is, making out is more of a private matter not a public show.

I'm usually in the middle with these kinds of things, not supporting nor against, though with gay marriage, I've sort of been leaning more towards supporting it. I think that if someone truly loves someone, be they the same gender or not, they should be allowed to marry.

MarioMaster1337 wrote:I think that if someone truly loves someone, be they the same gender or not, they should be allowed to marry.

In a way though, marriage has nothing to do with loving someone. Though it has been commercialized as such in modern ages, marriage has always been a religious thing, and for the longest time had nothing to do with love ether. Also, to the best of my knowledge most of the religions that popularized marriage originally opposed Homosexuality for whatever biased reason. I do think homosexuals should not be prosecuted and should not be shunned from society, especially in this modern age where people are realizing flaws in traditional beliefs, but honestly I think it's the belief that you need to get "married" to be in love that causes all the issues here.

That brings me to a statement I've made: You know how sometimes when a sports team beats another team, they say "Well, they just wanted it more." I think that's how progress works. For instance, gay marriage: Who do you think wants it more, the gay people who want their relationships to be equally recognized, or the straight people who want to hoard marriage for their adulterous, divorce-happy selves? Not saying that gays won't hoard it too, they just should have the ability to be just as terrible and disgusting as the rest of us.

TatteredTime wrote:You might have different reactions when walking in school you see homosexuals making out in plain daylight of the hallway

lolololololololololololol.
That is what every closet bigot says, and its intolerance is directly proportional to the following:

"You might have different reactions when walking in school you see blacks making out in plain daylight of the hallway"

or

"You might have different reactions when walking in school you see working class people making out in plain daylight of the hallway"

or

"You might have different reactions when walking in school you see disabled people making out in plain daylight of the hallway".

Now why is it that you would most likely (I hope) be fine with the above, but not with the homosexuals? Unless you had some sort of distaste for "making out" all together. But in that case, you wouldn't have made any point over homosexuality at all.

I don't think any making out in public is right. So there goes your argument.