This is a discussion on Gay Marriage: Equal Rights or Extra Rights? within the General Discussion forums, part of the Non Wrestling Forums category; Originally Posted by Advocate
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 20 or greater. ...
Welcome to Wrestling Clique Wrestling Forums
Hello and Welcome to WrestlingClique - Wrestling Forums!
We are the premier wrestling forum and your source for wrestling news and rumors, wrestling divas, wrestling gifs, sports discussion, e-feds, writing and more. Wrestling fans participate in active discussion on all the major wrestling leagues and events including WWE, ECW & TNA pay per view events, live wrestling streams, wrestling video games, collectibles, and other wrestling related products and services.
You're currently viewing our site as an unregistered guest which means you are limited to most discussions and features.
Take a few minutes to browse around, and if you like what you see, Register a free account to gain access to :
• Richer content, access forums that are not viewable by the public.
• Complete access to post topics, respond to polls, communicate privately (PM), take part contests, arcade, photo sharing, networking, groups.
• Create your personal profile and bio
• Meet and Chat Live with other members who share similar interests
Registration is simple and fast. Won't take you more than a minute and of course it's completely free.
So Join our Community today!
The sex drive will most likely cause them to have more fetishes than others, because plain old sex is not enough to satisfy their drive.
Not necessarily.
All people are attracted to different things and they don't have to have a high sex drive to have fetishes.
__________________
There'll be no sorrow there, no more burdens to bear,
No more sickness, no more pain, no more parting over there;
And forever I will be with the One who died for me,
What a day, glorious day that will be.
The idea of marriage is a religious one. Seeing as every major religion considers homosexuality to be a 'sin' or at odds with their beliefs, marriage shouldn't be an option for same sex couples. A civil partnership should be the most they're allowed. It's such a ridiculous notion it makes my head hurt.
If the idea of marriage is a religious one then why can people get married through the state? I mean, I don't have to be in a church or have a priest read the vows.
I understand why they wouldn't allow it in the church they have that right. Marriage, at least in the Catholic church, is about reproducing. Homosexuals obviously can't do that, hence why they wouldn't be allowed to marry in a Catholic church. The government has no reason to disallow gay marriage. They deserve the rights that everyone else has, and that's to be allowed to be married in the eyes of the state.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CM Punk
"I'm harder than any alcohol you can drink. I'm straighter than any line you can snort up your nose. And I certainly can hurt you a lot faster than any pill you put on your tongue."
Gay marriage is equal rights. Any straight person would have the rights to marry a man or woman if they so choosed, just a gay person would. I don't see how it's extra rights when straight people could do the same..
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Gay marriage is equal rights. Any straight person would have the rights to marry a man or woman if they so choosed, just a gay person would. I don't see how it's extra rights when straight people could do the same..
Fucks that supposed to mean? Its not religions fault that gays wont accept a civil union that would give them most of the legal rights that heterosexual couples have. Oh no, gay must have their union grouped in with the holy unions that are under God.
Gay marriage can be seen as extra rights as the religious interpretation of religion is between a man and a woman. The civil rights that come with a marriage under law secure the future of a family which has always been a man and a woman rasing a child in its basic form. That is the same rights a homosexual would gain off of a civil union. However, because of their principles, gays want the idea of marriage to be changed. When for the most part when the word marriage is heard, the religious definition is thought. Thus It an sense it could seem that gays want religious people to turn their backs on their religion and redefine the standards of thier religion for a life style which they do not accept, but tolerate because religion teaches to hate the sin, not the sinner.
Equal rights would be that of a civil union which by law can link men to men or women to women as a couple with the same rights as married couples wed in a church. However, gays seemingly wont accept this.
If we start redefining rights that are not life threating where do we stop. If two sixteen year old want to get married, why should they have to wait till they turn a legal age? Why can a teenager choose to go to war and have their choice heard, yet when they choose to get a drink at a bar it becomes denied? Every law of right should then have to be reconsidered considering marriage is not a right that is obstructing a gay persons ability to live a normal life and there has already been a possiblity for them to gain the same rights under law as a striaght couple does, which has yet to be looked into. These are not human rights issues that are being denied, these are life style changes that are being denied.
I haven't read the whole thread, and I probably won't try defend my stance on the issue because it's impossible to defend. It's is ignorant and whatever, but I honestly think gay people are just confused. You don't really hear of kids with normal childhoods growing up and becoming gay. It's all these kids with bad childhoods who were sexually abused or just beaten. Coming out is just another way of seeking attention. That's just my opinion though, and I know that it's bad. So, no. I don't think gays should get any rights because being gay is just a behavior.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
All people are attracted to different things and they don't have to have a high sex drive to have fetishes.
Well I was only describing a group of them. But that is one example of a natural reason.
Quote:
Fucks that supposed to mean? Its not religions fault that gays wont accept a civil union that would give them most of the legal rights that heterosexual couples have. Oh no, gay must have their union grouped in with the holy unions that are under God.
Gay marriage can be seen as extra rights as the religious interpretation of religion is between a man and a woman. The civil rights that come with a marriage under law secure the future of a family which has always been a man and a woman rasing a child in its basic form. That is the same rights a homosexual would gain off of a civil union. However, because of their principles, gays want the idea of marriage to be changed. When for the most part when the word marriage is heard, the religious definition is thought. Thus It an sense it could seem that gays want religious people to turn their backs on their religion and redefine the standards of thier religion for a life style which they do not accept, but tolerate because religion teaches to hate the sin, not the sinner.
Equal rights would be that of a civil union which by law can link men to men or women to women as a couple with the same rights as married couples wed in a church. However, gays seemingly wont accept this.
If we start redefining rights that are not life threating where do we stop. If two sixteen year old want to get married, why should they have to wait till they turn a legal age? Why can a teenager choose to go to war and have their choice heard, yet when they choose to get a drink at a bar it becomes denied? Every law of right should then have to be reconsidered considering marriage is not a right that is obstructing a gay persons ability to live a normal life and there has already been a possiblity for them to gain the same rights under law as a striaght couple does, which has yet to be looked into. These are not human rights issues that are being denied, these are life style changes that are being denied.
That first statement in bold is silly. Why would they accept a much lesser state that does not provide the same rights as marriage. That is like when segregation happened, if you only allowed blacks into some schools. Second, as we have made it clear in this thread, only some marriages are based on religion. People do get married by judges, and even Elvis impersonators. So why are two ceremonies performed by the same judge not have the same results? The holy thing is a flimsy excuse. AND, again like I mentioned, some churches want to facilitate gay marriages.
The second statement refers to the purpose of marriage for children. So if I get married with no intention of having children, should my marriage not be allowed? And again, a civil union does not provide gays many of the rights they would gain in marriage. So you are telling two couples that went through the exact ceremony that one has more rights than the other. Plus, why would you be against providing people more rights?
So again, I ask: If we allowed gay marriages, what rights would be lost by heterosexual couples OR why would gays have more rights? See, in this case, the heterosexual person can marry someone of the same sex too. Because you guys believe that gay is a choice, then they can choose gay.
For the third statement in bold, the argument there is that those situations have a negative effect on the person involved or on someone else. Who does gay marriage hurt?
There was a time where a black person could not marry a white. Does not seem right, does it?
I haven't read the whole thread, and I probably won't try defend my stance on the issue because it's impossible to defend. It's is ignorant and whatever, but I honestly think gay people are just confused. You don't really hear of kids with normal childhoods growing up and becoming gay. It's all these kids with bad childhoods who were sexually abused or just beaten. Coming out is just another way of seeking attention. That's just my opinion though, and I know that it's bad. So, no. I don't think gays should get any rights because being gay is just a behavior.
I know gays that had good childhoods and were never abused. Don't stereotype and then talk like it is fact.
Well I was only describing a group of them. But that is one example of a natural reason.
That first statement in bold is silly. Why would they accept a much lesser state that does not provide the same rights as marriage. That is like when segregation happened, if you only allowed blacks into some schools. Second, as we have made it clear in this thread, only some marriages are based on religion. People do get married by judges, and even Elvis impersonators. So why are two ceremonies performed by the same judge not have the same results? The holy thing is a flimsy excuse. AND, again like I mentioned, some churches want to facilitate gay marriages.
A civil union is a marriage in front of a judge that provides most of the same rights that a marriage in front of a priest provides, in the eyes of the law. They key words are that the gays "marriage" would be called a civil union instead of an actual "marriage." They would be recognized as a legal couple and a legal parnters in the event of ones death or an adoption of a child. There are only small differences between the two. Unless the couple is looking to walk to the alter with Here Comes the Bride playing.
Quote:
The second statement refers to the purpose of marriage for children. So if I get married with no intention of having children, should my marriage not be allowed? And again, a civil union does not provide gays many of the rights they would gain in marriage. So you are telling two couples that went through the exact ceremony that one has more rights than the other. Plus, why would you be against providing people more rights?
Im not against providing people with equal rights or humanity with more rights. Im against a right that infringes against peoples beliefs. A combination of a civil union and gays being allowed to adopt children gives them the same parenting rights of heterosexual couples and does not infringe on the religious beliefs of anyone.
Quote:
So again, I ask: If we allowed gay marriages, what rights would be lost by heterosexual couples OR why would gays have more rights? See, in this case, the heterosexual person can marry someone of the same sex too. Because you guys believe that gay is a choice, then they can choose gay.
For the third statement in bold, the argument there is that those situations have a negative effect on the person involved or on someone else. Who does gay marriage hurt?
There was a time where a black person could not marry a white. Does not seem right, does it?
Where did I say I believe being gay is a choice? The laws of attraction apply to both gays and heterosexuals. How does two teens being married hurt the people involved? Marriage is marriage. In the case of beer over war, Im pretty sure being shot hurts a hell of a lot more than getting drunk. marriage hurts the core of many religious beliefs, not just Catholic. If gays feel that a civil union does not give them enough rights, which I feel it does, why must the infringe on others beliefs? Why dont they fight for the rights in civil unions to be redefined. Many people being married under god dont want their union being linked in with something that they feel is a sin based on their religious beliefs.
I am a product of a marriage that involved a black man and a white woman. No it was not right to not let them marry, but that is because regardless of colour, it was still a man and a woman being married. Under the religious definition, marriage is a man and a woman. It does not state a white woman and a white man. If gays want to be recognized as a legal couple a civil union provides very similar rights, they just cant get past the fact that their union isnt known as a wedding based marriage, if you ask me.
A civil union is a marriage in front of a judge that provides most of the same rights that a marriage in front of a priest provides, in the eyes of the law. They key words are that the gays "marriage" would be called a civil union instead of an actual "marriage." They would be recognized as a legal couple and a legal parnters in the event of ones death or an adoption of a child. There are only small differences between the two. Unless the couple is looking to walk to the alter with Here Comes the Bride playing.
The civil unions presented in every circumstance have had less rights than married couples. When a judge facilitates a ceremony with two heterosexual couples, it is called a marriage. Same with an Elvis impersonator.
Quote:
Im not against providing people with equal rights or humanity with more rights. Im against a right that infringes against peoples beliefs. A combination of a civil union and gays being allowed to adopt children gives them the same parenting rights of heterosexual couples and does not infringe on the religious beliefs of anyone.
How is gay marriage infringing on religious beliefs? In Canada, where we have it, churches do not have to facilitate gay ceremonies. Some churches want to. So isn't removing the choice infringing religious beliefs? Why should the opinions of Catholicism matter more than the United Church?
By that argument, giving rights to women, isn't that infringing on orthodox islamic beliefs?
Quote:
Where did I say I believe being gay is a choice? The laws of attraction apply to both gays and heterosexuals. How does two teens being married hurt the people involved? Marriage is marriage. In the case of beer over war, Im pretty sure being shot hurts a hell of a lot more than getting drunk. marriage hurts the core of many religious beliefs, not just Catholic. If gays feel that a civil union does not give them enough rights, which I feel it does, why must the infringe on others beliefs? Why dont they fight for the rights in civil unions to be redefined. Many people being married under god dont want their union being linked in with something that they feel is a sin in their religion. I am a product of a marriage that involved a black man and a white woman. No it was not right to not let them marry, but that is because regardless of colour, it was still a man and a woman being married. Under the religious definition, marriage is a man and a woman. It does not state a white woman and a white man. If gays want to be recognized as a legal couple a civil union provides very similar rights, they just cant get past the fact that their union isnt known as a wedding based marriage, if you ask me.
The two teens could be hurting themselves. People would argue that they do not know what they are doing. They would not have the cognitive development to make the correct decision. Actually, marriage between two 16 year olds is allowed with parental permission. I do not think anyone would argue that two gays getting married are hurting each other.
Beer, the same thing. If you let a 16 year old get drunk, he/she may not have the experience to think properly with it. Actually, I am against the idea that it should be 21. I think it should be lower.
You know what has damaged the core-beliefs of marriage? Divorce and immediate Vegas weddings. In addition, you can argue that judge performed ceremonies may be the same too. You know what hurts religion? When you let one religion to control politics, and to have far more power than other popular religions. You know how many people thought it was a sin for a Protestant to marry a Catholic at one point?
Linear Mode
