Should Gay Marriage Exist?

a reply to: matafuchs

Thanks for sharing a personal story , you made a exellent point and i fully agree .

originally posted by: The2Billies

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: The2Billies

Maybe LGBT shouldn't be trying to cram their bedroom activities down the throats of everyone else

That made me laugh...lol

In my business there are a lot of gay people and I have never encountered what you just described.

It is the I"m gay, be thrilled for me, applaud me attitude that I am describing. I don't want to know if you are gay, I don't care. I don't want to know if you are heterosexual, I don't care. Just be a real person and definitely not a parody of what a LGBT is "supposed" to be. In most encounters with most people, they don't want or need to know what gender person you sleep with or what pronoun you demand to be used when around you.

My daughter had a "flamboyant" gay friend. A few times he was just plain old "Steve" around me, a regular person, no flaming, no arm gestulating, just a real person with a normal tone of voice. Each time I said to him, you are a great person when you are just you, the real you, that is the best you.

A long time good acquaintance of mine, my bank manager, and I have been "friends" and really like each other and do a quickie chat whenever I"m in the bank. I knew him when he was part time and sent the company a message saying he should be full time. When he was full time, the bank manager then, was a total jerk who I could see was awful to employees and customers. I sent the company a message saying my "friend" should be manager and why. He was made bank manager, not because of my messages, but because he is great with people and good at his job. When he was given responsibility of 3 banks I congratulated him and saw a wedding ring for the first time and congratulated him on that. I asked how his wife was dealing with him being so busy at work, he said "my husband". I said "well how is your husband dealing with it." He laughed and said his husband was busy too so it didn't matter. We are still good acquaintances. I asked, he answered, no big deal. That is the way it should be. I didn't know he was gay, it wasn't my business and he did not make it my business until I congratulated him on getting married. That is how it should be with everyone.

That is what I mean. Like transgender, who are like a person I encounter at a store I go to. "She" behaves normally, not a funny walk meant to parody "women", not a weird voice meant to parody women, not weird makeup or hair that is normally only seen on drag queens. She is a normal person with a normal voice etc. I like "her" and she likes me as a person. When she is in the restroom she keeps her "junk" private as do all real XX women. It is when transgender behave as a parody of the biological sex they are not, or display their "junk" in locker rooms or restrooms that forces others to know their bedroom activities, and they expect others to applaud instead of be disgusted that they make their sexual proclivities "in your face" to others.

When LGBT behave in a manner that is a parody of gayness or LGBT that is forcing me to know what they do in the bedroom and putting it out for all to "approve of". That is forcing others to not only know their sexual proclivities but expecting others to applaud - almost in a menacing manner - applaud my sexual activities or else. I find that repulsive and rude.

I like 👍🏼

No

originally posted by: snarfbot
No

Because?

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
...based in legal guardianship. And that legal guardianship started where...?

Laws based on the religious customs of the times.

Yes.

If your answer is anything else, you’re stupid. No way to sugar coat it.

Same sex marriage shouldn't be a thing.
As in, it shouldn't be called marriage. Because its not what marriage is.
It isn't progress or anything like that, to say changing the definition is progress.

Its a perversion.
There's nothing natural about homosexuality.
It might feel good to some to stick their member into a hot apple pie, it might give them pleasure. If enough people do it and campaign for it to be normalised, should it be?

Whats the purpose of sexualising intercourse? Reproduction the survival of the human species.

They are now trying to normalise men being women, and all sorts of nonsense.
As well as paedophilia, which the sickos are calling minor attracted person.
Theyre going to campaign and use their influence to normalise this, are you all going to support it?
Today you'll say no, you won't support pedos.
In a few years you'll be supporting it, just like you supported gat marriage and all the covid nonsense and tge ridiculous Ukraine narrative.


Instead of calling it same sex marriage, just call it a civil union and stop messing with common sense.

Oh, and same sex couples should have ZERO rights to have kids via surrogates or adopt.

If you want to be a homosexual, you forefite you're right to have kids.
Your relationship prevents you from having kids naturally, there shouldn't be any way around that allowed.

Time for common sense and logic to reign supreme on this planet while there's still something left to salvage from the moronic godless radical leftists

originally posted by: mortex
Same sex marriage shouldn't be a thing.
As in, it shouldn't be called marriage. Because its not what marriage is.
It isn't progress or anything like that, to say changing the definition is progress.

I think it is the right of religion to define it.

If your religion says it shouldn't be a thing, then by all means: in your faith it shouldn't be. People attending your church shouldn't be allowed to call it marriage, if they want to stay part of your congregation.


People of another church, however, should be allowed to call it marriage all they want, if their faith considers it to be a legitimate form of marriage.

Even the church of Satan has the right to exist in a nation that allows religious freedom (so long as its members don't commit any actual crimes, as defined by the secular authority.)

Its a perversion.
There's nothing natural about homosexuality.
It might feel good to some to stick their member into a hot apple pie, it might give them pleasure. If enough people do it and campaign for it to be normalised, should it be?

The natural state of a human being is to be naked and hungry, exposed to the elements.

Anything better than that is artificial.

Do you like living in a house? Or do you want things to be natural?

Whats the purpose of sexualising intercourse? Reproduction the survival of the human species.

They are now trying to normalise men being women, and all sorts of nonsense.

Soon we'll be able to grow babies in test tubes, and we won't need it.

As well as paedophilia, which the sickos are calling minor attracted person.
Theyre going to campaign and use their influence to normalise this, are you all going to support it?
Today you'll say no, you won't support pedos.
In a few years you'll be supporting it, just like you supported gat marriage and all the covid nonsense and tge ridiculous Ukraine narrative.

The problem with pedophilia is consent. A person under 18 can't legally give consent, and sex without consent is, by definition: rape.

I don't think permitting rape is ever going to become a mainstream ideal.

Instead of calling it same sex marriage, just call it a civil union and stop messing with common sense.

Or just call all marriages civil unions, and have the state leave it at that.

I don't want Uncle Sam in my bedroom. He's too dam creepy.

Oh, and same sex couples should have ZERO rights to have kids via surrogates or adopt.

What about people that aren't married at all? Or virgins who haven't had homo or hetero sex in their lifetime?

If you want to be a homosexual, you forefite you're right to have kids.
Your relationship prevents you from having kids naturally, there shouldn't be any way around that allowed.

Time for common sense and logic to reign supreme on this planet while there's still something left to salvage from the moronic godless radical leftists

You're forgetting artificial insemination.

It's a word - words can have two meanings. I don't know why people have such a hard time with that?

There's a legal definition and your personal religious/feeling definition.

You can't give legal definitions a specific religious definition just because there are too many religions/ideals. Catholics and orthodox jews have some very strict interpretations of marriages and divorce. Disputes happen even within the same religion. The legal definition shouldn't take away from your personal definition.

Same goes with the words female and male. They are words and they can have two meanings. Womens sports can mean woman with certain hormones or DNA. There's a very good reason to have the distinction. Boxers have different weight categories and school sports have different ages. You can refer to someone as a woman for sports but that shouldn't take away from their personal definition of a woman.

a reply to: Daughter2

Holy crap a rational take.

Idk, I think it impossible to have a Happy Marriage these days, the woman have unrealistic expectations and the men look in the mirror more then her. All the while when you hit your 30s, the male sex drive goes on to a decline, while her goes up until a certain point.....

Oh you meant that kind of, not Gay ol Time like the Flintstones. Sure, let them suffer.

What the hell kind of question lol.

Yes it should.

Religion creates too much division and wars. This is just an example of how it is problematic to humans. Just saying.


Here's another question for you, if we follow this logic. Should non religious people be allowed to marry? I mean it is a religious thing isn't it?

Being against gay marriage doesn't make you a homophobe 100%. But it tells me you arent much of a thinker.

originally posted by: Backagain
a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n
I am gay, and have always been okay with a union recognized by the government between same sex couples, that afford the same benefits as a heterosexual married couple. Gay marriage didn't have to be the solution.

I also get sick of the LGBTQRXTUV (did I get the letters right? I can't keep up) crying all the time, about trans athletes. If you were born a male, you don't get to win a medal, in women's sports!

They keep changing the flag as well.

These people find it natural that they are choosing a lifestyle where they cannot reduce? They will never pass their DNA or family name onto the future.

Family names that have been around for multiple generations forever erased from history

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous

originally posted by: mortex
Same sex marriage shouldn't be a thing.
As in, it shouldn't be called marriage. Because its not what marriage is.
It isn't progress or anything like that, to say changing the definition is progress.

I think it is the right of religion to define it.

If your religion says it shouldn't be a thing, then by all means: in your faith it shouldn't be. People attending your church shouldn't be allowed to call it marriage, if they want to stay part of your congregation.


People of another church, however, should be allowed to call it marriage all they want, if their faith considers it to be a legitimate form of marriage.

Even the church of Satan has the right to exist in a nation that allows religious freedom (so long as its members don't commit any actual crimes, as defined by the secular authority.)

My comment wasn't against religions.

Its a perversion.
There's nothing natural about homosexuality.
It might feel good to some to stick their member into a hot apple pie, it might give them pleasure. If enough people do it and campaign for it to be normalised, should it be?

The natural state of a human being is to be naked and hungry, exposed to the elements.

Anything better than that is artificial.

Do you like living in a house? Or do you want things to be natural?

One of the dumbest simpleton responses I've ever read.
Man lived in caves once, right?
Man made simple shelters once, right?
We now make bigger, better shelters, we call them houses and apartment buildings.

Sexual intercourse has one primary purpose. Reproduction, which means the continuation of our species.
For reproduction to occur, I'm sure you know (I hope), that you need a male and a female.
Reproduction does not happen between two males, two females, again, I hope you know this.

Humanities sick and twisted perverted scientists can mess with Gods work, and create men that can give birth, give people sex changes, give people hormones to change them, whatever else.
That doesn't make it natural or more just as important, NORMAL.
It is called an abomination for a reason.

Whats the purpose of sexualising intercourse? Reproduction the survival of the human species.

They are now trying to normalise men being women, and all sorts of nonsense.

Soon we'll be able to grow babies in test tubes, and we won't need it.

See above.

As well as paedophilia, which the sickos are calling minor attracted person.
Theyre going to campaign and use their influence to normalise this, are you all going to support it?
Today you'll say no, you won't support pedos.
In a few years you'll be supporting it, just like you supported gat marriage and all the covid nonsense and tge ridiculous Ukraine narrative.

The problem with pedophilia is consent. A person under 18 can't legally give consent, and sex without consent is, by definition: rape.

I don't think permitting rape is ever going to become a mainstream ideal.

So technically, based on what you just posted, you're supportive of paedophiles.

The problem with paedophilia isn't consent, it is that it is morally wrong.
You have to have some serious screws loose up stairs to think that the problem is consent.
But you just gave your self away.
I think we've uncovered a radical leftist troll...

Instead of calling it same sex marriage, just call it a civil union and stop messing with common sense.

Or just call all marriages civil unions, and have the state leave it at that.

I don't want Uncle Sam in my bedroom. He's too dam creepy.

No, because a marriage is something many faiths hold deer and important, and some would say holy.
Diminishing it to a civil union, just to appease sicko radical leftist extremists, like you, and degenerate perverts, is wrong.
It's this appeasement that has gotten us to this disturbing stage in humanity.

Oh, and same sex couples should have ZERO rights to have kids via surrogates or adopt.

What about people that aren't married at all? Or virgins who haven't had homo or hetero sex in their lifetime?


What about them...
How do you expect a virgin to have a child?
Who cares if a male and female aren't married?
I said same sex couples, I didn't say same sex MARRIED couples....

Clutch at more straws though.

If you want to be a homosexual, you forefite you're right to have kids.
Your relationship prevents you from having kids naturally, there shouldn't be any way around that allowed.

Time for common sense and logic to reign supreme on this planet while there's still something left to salvage from the moronic godless radical leftists

You're forgetting artificial insemination.

See several points above.

And like I said, common sense and logic needs to be a thing again.
Clearly you lack both. You also lack any moral fibre, based on your comments regarding pedos.

originally posted by: Bloodworth
These people find it natural that they are choosing a lifestyle where they cannot reduce? They will never pass their DNA or family name onto the future.

Family names that have been around for multiple generations forever erased from history

Animals can be gay. Tell me whats natural again.

Perhaps animal's brains, like human brains, can be wired up wrong. Or they just get confused and try to shag anything. Seen a boar hump a volvo.

originally posted by: ExiledSpirit777

originally posted by: Bloodworth
These people find it natural that they are choosing a lifestyle where they cannot reduce? They will never pass their DNA or family name onto the future.

Family names that have been around for multiple generations forever erased from history

Animals can be gay. Tell me whats natural again.

And if every animal cboose that life style they would go out of existence.
That's a big negative consequence of said life style.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n

What is communion?
In a nutshell, not looking for a theologian to explain communion haha. But its about consuming the theoretical body and blood of Christ.
Communion is a RELIGIOUS rite.

You asked what it is then say you dont want a theological answer and offer your own answer as relevant, uhm. you know thats a bit silly
Your opinion is not correct
There is non christian communion and christian communion isnt there?
There is non christian marriage and christian marriage isnt there?

That sure went right over your head.....

Lol, sometimes I come back to my old threads and reply to a random comment. You won the response lottery

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Well your op made no sense then as your reply makes no sense now
Who are you to decide what Christians should tolerate?