This is a discussion on Gay Marriage: Equal Rights or Extra Rights? within the General Discussion forums, part of the Non Wrestling Forums category; I'm watching this debate on youtube about how California shot down gays getting married( Prop8: For or against, cant remember) ...
Welcome to Wrestling Clique 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.
Registration is FREE! You will have to REGISTER before you can post and interact in the forums: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the Forum Rules by clicking the link above.
I'm watching this debate on youtube about how California shot down gays getting married( Prop8: For or against, cant remember) Since a majority of the African Americian population that voted was against gay marriage, the homosexual community has turned to the civil rights movement as a way to make African Americans " Understand that they are oppressing gays much like they were oppressed during slavery." Now African Americans who are debating the point are saying that the two issues cant be compared because homosexuals have the same rights as every other human in the free world. They have the right to marry one person of the opposite sex. What homosexuals are trying to gain is extra rights for their lifestyle. A major issue is that lifestyle should not constitute a change in rights. Back in the days of the civil rights movement, African Americans, and the other demographics thats supported their movement where fighting for equality such as being able to use the mens washroom no matter the colour of skin. If homosexuals are able to have rights based on lifestyle, why is it illegal to help assist people in suicide, and where will the rights change based on lifestyle end? If a 13 year old girl consents to sex with a middle aged man, will it still be considered, by law, as rape?
Note: these are not my personal thoughts on the matter, Im simply summing up the argument for both sides so dont come flaming me based on the opinion of others.
If homosexuals are able to have rights based on lifestyle, why isnt it illegal to help assist people in suicide,
I thought it was illegal in the states. Did you mean legal?
Quote:
and where will the rights change based on lifestyle end? If a 13 year old girl consents to sex with a middle aged man, will it still be considered, by law, as rape?
Yes, it's rape because the 13 year old is a minor and, by law, cannot be responsible for making that decision. Now, if her dad is ok with it, he has the option of not pressing charges.
I don't think gay marriage is 'extra rights' at all. Sure, they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, but they don't have the right to marry who they choose, which is the right that straight people have right now.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny Poffo
You can't be kind without spilling some of it on yourself.
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.
Rights wise, I'm against same sex couples being allowed to adopt but they should have the majority of righs of oher people. They're human beings so why not? The adoption issue is purely a question of biology. Same sex couples cannot conceive so they should not be allowed to raise children. They gave up that right when they decided to lead a homosexual lifestyle
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.
Rights wise, I'm against same sex couples being allowed to adopt but they should have the majority of righs of oher people. They're human beings so why not? The adoption issue is purely a question of biology. Same sex couples cannot conceive so they should not be allowed to raise children. They gave up that right when they decided to lead a homosexual lifestyle
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.
The concpet may be religious, but I'm pretty sure there's a tonne of legal connotations with it, so no, it's not strictly religious....
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.
Rights wise, I'm against same sex couples being allowed to adopt but they should have the majority of righs of oher people. They're human beings so why not? The adoption issue is purely a question of biology. Same sex couples cannot conceive so they should not be allowed to raise children. They gave up that right when they decided to lead a homosexual lifestyle
Actually, marriage came outside of marriage in addition to marriage. Marriage is also performed in civil ceremonies along with religious ones. So that right there shows that religion does not have an exclusivity on it.
Furthermore, some churches and religions believe in gay marriage. The United Church, for instance, wants to perform the ceremonies. Therefore, by disallowing gay marriage, you prohibiting some of the freedoms of some religions. If the Catholic church does not want to wed homosexuals, then it should not have to. But if another church wants to, why should Catholicism's views prevent it from doing so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by neXus
Because there have been no medical studies that prove 100% otherwise.
Actually, there have been medical studies that have proven it. Of course, these studies are disputed by groups that find homosexuality "icky," so the results tend to be ignored.
Actually, there have been medical studies that have proven it. Of course, these studies are disputed by groups that find homosexuality "icky," so the results tend to be ignored.
They can come up with 'studies' to support any stance.
They came up with studies back in the 1930's that mariujuana was a very strong narcodic and made people lose their minds.
Doesn't mean it is true.
__________________
There are thousands to tell you it cannot be done,
There are thousands to prophesy failure;
There are thousands to point out to you one by one,
The dangers that wait to assail you.
But just buckle it in with a bit of a grin,
Just take off your coat and go to it;
Just start to sing as you tackle the thing
That "couldn’t be done," and you’ll do it.
Linear Mode
