By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Argentina Legalizes Gay Marriage and Adoption, 1st country in Latin America

Akvod on 16 July 2010
Seece said:
Akvod said:
Seece said:
Akvod said:
Seece said:

The fact you think being called gay is vile sums you up perfectly and ISN'T an insult. and your opinion IS vile spew.

"No I don't think, I know.

Isn't it lovely how even on here, you can't spew your vile thoughts on people without being reprimanded, I can't wait for a world where it's the homophobes living in a world of fear, and not the other way around.

Thankfully it's pretty open and accepting here so I don't have to deal with that kind of ignorance."

If I said that in the workplace, I'd be A-OK. If you said any of your views (if it was a decent company) you'd be taken to the managers office immediatly.

You are ignorant to the subject, you spew a bunch of hate, and the majority don't care to listen.

It must pain you, that in so many growing places you have to hide your opinion, while I can talk openly at the disgust of hompobics without any problem (99% of the time everyone agreeing with me.)


If getting called gay isn't an insult, why was I banned when I described you as a gay British man?

I've made a point before, and you said something along the lines of me using it as an insult, although I pointed out that that I could have easily meant "British" or "man" to be insults.

Me and whoever the mod was, didn't agree. Ambiguity will not save you ...

Also I'm pretty sure you were banned because of the other stuff you said in your post.

But you just said "gay" wasn't an insult >.< You can't be self-righteous and flip flop.

You also can't claim to be a mind reader, nor use "ambiguity" as a proof. When there is vagueness or openness, you have to present proof to support the one possibility you consider. In fact, I can't believe you use ambiguity as some sort of indicator or proof of my guilt when it is the very opposite.

you know ful well it isn't that black and white, you used it for no reason in a view to attack me, "i" don't need proof, if they believe it was an attack, they;ll ban you. OH and if you completely chose to ignore it, I'll say it again, that wasn't what got you banned, it was the other crap you said.

So, let me get this clear, is it alright to call gay people gay? Or can gay people only use it themselves? Is gay an insult, or not?

This is the same issue as the "n*gger", or "woman" shit. People get offended when others use it,but then they like to use it as a banner for themselves. Make up your mind.

I don't care if somebody calls me Japanese or American even if they meant it as an insult. Lots of people around the world use both as insults. However, they can shout it in front of me, and I won't be offended being called that.



Around the Network
richardhutnik on 16 July 2010
Akvod said:
richardhutnik said:

Why does a marriage need to be something done by governments?  That is what I am talking about.  People don't need government to get married to one another,or pick who to couple with.  You can say the wedding vow with anyone you want, and choose to live by it.  Religion has codified the rituals, and standardize the meaning in it.

To go beyond this is to end up getting into a discussion of whether or not government or religion came first. 

Actually I like your solution the best.

Civil union status granted by government. Religious status granted by citizenry, and acknowledged by citizenry. Seperation of state and religion, I like it. Gay people can find the church and people that will acknowledge them as married Christians, muslims, etc, those who disagree can keep their disagreements to themselves.

I think this is the best option.

My thoughts on this came out of discussing the issues at a Libertarian meeting, and someone said it and I thought it best.  The main thing the government needs to be concerned about is the welfare of minors (and the partners, but assume adults know how to manage their affairs) and the proper dividing of property when a partnership dissolved.  Outside of this, trying to use government laws to change societial values, I find to be sheer folly. 

The point is to have sufficient flexibility to manage the range of human experience, and minimum the problems that can arise.  Shoot, the civil union method could be used to allow platonic friends to be able to support one another in a positive manner to.



Tbone on 16 July 2010

Adoption shouldn´t be allowed, well thats what i think.



 

Seece on 16 July 2010
Akvod said:
Seece said:
Akvod said:
Seece said:
Akvod said:
Seece said:

The fact you think being called gay is vile sums you up perfectly and ISN'T an insult. and your opinion IS vile spew.

"No I don't think, I know.

Isn't it lovely how even on here, you can't spew your vile thoughts on people without being reprimanded, I can't wait for a world where it's the homophobes living in a world of fear, and not the other way around.

Thankfully it's pretty open and accepting here so I don't have to deal with that kind of ignorance."

If I said that in the workplace, I'd be A-OK. If you said any of your views (if it was a decent company) you'd be taken to the managers office immediatly.

You are ignorant to the subject, you spew a bunch of hate, and the majority don't care to listen.

It must pain you, that in so many growing places you have to hide your opinion, while I can talk openly at the disgust of hompobics without any problem (99% of the time everyone agreeing with me.)


If getting called gay isn't an insult, why was I banned when I described you as a gay British man?

I've made a point before, and you said something along the lines of me using it as an insult, although I pointed out that that I could have easily meant "British" or "man" to be insults.

Me and whoever the mod was, didn't agree. Ambiguity will not save you ...

Also I'm pretty sure you were banned because of the other stuff you said in your post.

But you just said "gay" wasn't an insult >.< You can't be self-righteous and flip flop.

You also can't claim to be a mind reader, nor use "ambiguity" as a proof. When there is vagueness or openness, you have to present proof to support the one possibility you consider. In fact, I can't believe you use ambiguity as some sort of indicator or proof of my guilt when it is the very opposite.

you know ful well it isn't that black and white, you used it for no reason in a view to attack me, "i" don't need proof, if they believe it was an attack, they;ll ban you. OH and if you completely chose to ignore it, I'll say it again, that wasn't what got you banned, it was the other crap you said.

So, let me get this clear, is it alright to call gay people gay? Or can gay people only use it themselves? Is gay an insult, or not?

This is the same issue as the "n*gger", or "woman" shit. People get offended when others use it,but then they like to use it as a banner for themselves. Make up your mind.

I don't care if somebody calls me Japanese or American even if they meant it as an insult. Lots of people around the world use both as insults. However, they can shout it in front of me, and I won't be offended being called that

I took it as an attack (the whole descripion not just the word gay) the mod agreed, you were banned for something else in that post.

I'm not gonan drag this out with you whilst you ignore the facts.



 

Boutros on 16 July 2010
draik said:

Gratz.

 

Same-sex marriage currently is legal in Netherlands, BElgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, NOrway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland and Argentina.

Homosexuality legal      Same-sex marriage      Other type of partnership (or unregistered cohabitation)      Foreign same-sex marriages recognized      No recognition of same-sex couples
Homosexuality illegal      Minimal penalty      Large penalty      Life in prison      Death penalty

Woah there's still death penalty?! Even a simple penalty is shocking O.o

That is extremely archaic and somehow unbelievable.



Around the Network
Seece on 16 July 2010
Boutros said:
draik said:

Gratz.

 

Same-sex marriage currently is legal in Netherlands, BElgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, NOrway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland and Argentina.

Homosexuality legal      Same-sex marriage      Other type of partnership (or unregistered cohabitation)      Foreign same-sex marriages recognized      No recognition of same-sex couples
Homosexuality illegal      Minimal penalty      Large penalty      Life in prison      Death penalty

Woah there's still death penalty?! Even a simple penalty is shocking O.o

That is extremely archaic and somehow unbelievable.

They stoned a woman to death because she had sex* with a man behind her husbands back in one country.

*She was actually raped.



 

richardhutnik on 16 July 2010
sad.man.loves.vgc said:
richardhutnik said:

Ok, the main thing here is my concern is the idea of "right" being the basis of this.  When it comes to adoption, the ONLY concern should be who would be best to raise the children.  NOTHING ELSE MATTERS HERE.  When children become some sort of accessory that is used to enable a person to have their "rights" or get "life satisfaction" or "purpose" it is so incredibly backwards, words have a hard time describing how self-serving and wrong it is.  Children aren't pets one has for gratification, or to "get love".  And raising children is a responsibility that needs to be done, for the betterment of everyone here.  But, keep on arguing from a "rights" mindset, and children become playthings which are used to meet the longings and whims of adults.


I don't get the point here, infertile straight couples adopt kids for the same reasons u mentioned, why doesn't that apply to them and apply to gay couples?

My criticism is a criticism of a ethics system based on rights, rather than something else.   I see parenting as a priviledge and a duty, not a right.  What I saids would apply to them also, and anyone else who wants to be parents.  Being a parent isn't a right.  You also see teenage girls getting pregnant, because they feel they have a right to become a parent, and feel that having a kid would address all the above I mentioned to.  Do teenage girls have a right to become parents?



Boutros on 16 July 2010
Tbone said:

Adoption shouldn´t be allowed, well thats what i think.


It's not a question of it being allowed or not. I say it should be allowed but the couple who decides to adopt need to realize it might affect the child. I have no idea in what way or if it would really affect a child all that much though.



Tbone on 16 July 2010
Boutros said:
Tbone said:

Adoption shouldn´t be allowed, well thats what i think.


It's not a question of it being allowed or not. I say it should be allowed but the couple who decides to adopt need to realize it might affect the child. I have no idea in what way or if it would really affect a child all that much though.



Serioulsy u can only imagine how it would be for a child to have 2 fathers. In scholl the kids would totally destroy him or her and u can just imagine how he/she would feel like.



 

sad.man.loves.vgc on 16 July 2010
richardhutnik said:
sad.man.loves.vgc said:
richardhutnik said:
 

Ok, the main thing here is my concern is the idea of "right" being the basis of this.  When it comes to adoption, the ONLY concern should be who would be best to raise the children.  NOTHING ELSE MATTERS HERE.  When children become some sort of accessory that is used to enable a person to have their "rights" or get "life satisfaction" or "purpose" it is so incredibly backwards, words have a hard time describing how self-serving and wrong it is.  Children aren't pets one has for gratification, or to "get love".  And raising children is a responsibility that needs to be done, for the betterment of everyone here.  But, keep on arguing from a "rights" mindset, and children become playthings which are used to meet the longings and whims of adults.


I don't get the point here, infertile straight couples adopt kids for the same reasons u mentioned, why doesn't that apply to them and apply to gay couples?

My criticism is a criticism of a ethics system based on rights, rather than something else.   I see parenting as a priviledge and a duty, not a right.  What I saids would apply to them also, and anyone else who wants to be parents.  Being a parent isn't a right.  You also see teenage girls getting pregnant, because they feel they have a right to become a parent, and feel that having a kid would address all the above I mentioned to.  Do teenage girls have a right to become parents?


no they don't and they shouldn't. i will never adopt a kid because there is a slight chance it would effect him but I am not a physcologist and people shouldn't use that as an excuse to ban gay adoptions. I mean if they really care why are widowed women allowed to raise their childern on their own?

and parenting is a duty , I agree but most parents fail their duty , why they weren't denied the right to have kids?