| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 126453 | 2012-08-28 23:09:00 | Catholic Church objects to 'same sex marriage' | mzee (3324) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 1297569 | 2012-08-29 04:54:00 | Animals also kill each other and feed off their own young in some instances, but that doesn't mean we should, nor make it legal.So do some people | plod (107) | ||
| 1297570 | 2012-08-29 04:55:00 | All comes down to DNA ;) What has the National Dyslexia Association got to do with this? |
Gobe1 (6290) | ||
| 1297571 | 2012-08-29 05:00:00 | True, however you've just summed up a Civil Union, which they already have. And yeah, you're right, marriages have a > 50% divorce rate in New Zealand, and I believe that statistic is even marginally higher in the church. Finally, nobody but the individual priest who fiddles with little catholic boys actually says that what those priests are doing is OK. They should be shot if you ask me. So ban marriage, everyone can do civil unions. They. There's too much us and them in the world now...it's what leads to wars...and maybe eating of children. |
pctek (84) | ||
| 1297572 | 2012-08-29 05:08:00 | Yup. Pretty much every single argument I've seen can be used to promote it can also be used against it. Similarly most of those against it have quite specific arguments relating to a religion that most of the country doesn't identify with. It's a great big circle, really... It just goes around in circles and nothing is done about it. |
QW. (15883) | ||
| 1297573 | 2012-08-29 06:17:00 | The reason gays want marriage is so their can have the same rights, which are not covered under civil unions. One being adoption. And I'm pretty sure gay couple couldn't do worse job then some heterosexual couples. | plod (107) | ||
| 1297574 | 2012-08-29 06:30:00 | Not all animals are cannibals but all of them have some sort of reproduction system, which is the main point of comparison here. All comes down to DNA ;) True but they all have mouths that can be used for eating. We all have holes in our body we can put things in, not just another persons body parts, but it doesn't make it a good idea. This is precisely the circular argument I'm talking about. Your exact reasoning can also be used as a reason against it. So ban marriage, everyone can do civil unions. They. There's too much us and them in the world now...it's what leads to wars...and maybe eating of children. Yeah that's not a bad point, and that's something I've thought of too. Why not just make Civil Unions the legal ground for everything in the country to stand upon, so marriages no longer legally mean anything. Marriage can then be used or abused by religious types as a 'religious only' addition to their relationship. It's food for thought to say the least. The reason gays want marriage is so their can have the same rights, which are not covered under civil unions. One being adoption. And I'm pretty sure gay couple couldn't do worse job then some heterosexual couples. Yeah pretty much, that's the real #1 reason most same-sex couples want marriage. Begs the question: Why not fix the adoption law though and address the issue directly rather than going around the back way to solve a problem? (Though you could say that gays like going through the back way ;) ) It's another issue altogether really, which is simply being dragged into this one. It's a good and valid point though: If a solo father is capable of adopting a child and providing them with a safe and loving and caring home, then surely two men on twice the income can do just as well? I dunno, but again that's more food for thought :) |
Chilling_Silence (9) | ||
| 1297575 | 2012-08-29 06:38:00 | Yes chill, the governed should have done this when civil unions were first introduced. Instead it's a half arse attempt. 90% sure the gay marriage wouldn't be an issue if it was done back then. | plod (107) | ||
| 1297576 | 2012-08-29 06:53:00 | Yes chill, the governed should have done this when civil unions were first introduced. Instead it's a half arse attempt. 90% sure the gay marriage wouldn't be an issue if it was done back then. Should have done it at the time, not stuffing around with the issue now. |
QW. (15883) | ||
| 1297577 | 2012-08-29 07:53:00 | The reason I object is because yet another word in the English language is about to be corrupted and have its meaning changed by the homosexual community. Take the word 'gay', no one now remembers when it was used every day and had no connotations with poofterism at all :) Back in 1929 Bing Crosby could sing about 'Gay Love' (www.box.com) (click to play) and everyone knew what he meant...nowadays......who knows ? :banana |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 1297578 | 2012-08-29 08:03:00 | The reason I object is because yet another word in the English language is about to be corrupted and have its meaning changed by the homosexual community. About to? The meaning was "changed" long before now... Although it's not really a change, just an addition. Many words already exist with multiple definitions. |
Agent_24 (57) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 | |||||