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

Forums - General Discussion - France legalizes gay marriage despite angry protests

 

Do you want gay marriage in your country?

Yes, It would just be fair 241 58.78%
 
No, get the gay out of my country 102 24.88%
 
meh, I don't really care 66 16.10%
 
Total:409

Sweet, gay justice! Congrats to France for believing in the power of love!



"Trick shot? The trick is NOT to get shot." - Lucian

Around the Network
RCTjunkie said:
dsgrue3 said:
RCTjunkie said:
The poll shows a slight sense of bias.

Just because someone doesn't approve of Gay Marriage doesn't mean that they want them out of the country or view them as evil demons/lesser persons.....

Provide a compelling argument for disallowing gays to marry without using the terms "The Bible", "I feel", or "Jesus" and I'll entertain it. Otherwise you're simply using religious rhetoric to promote your own bigotry.

1. Making the assumption that I'm a bigot or that I don't even want to allow gays to marry shows how quickly you jump to conclusions.

2. I don't think anyone should get married, at least in the state level. It's technically a religous term and interferes with the Seperation of Church and State. I propose civil unions for any 2 adults that want to be together and they all get the same benefits. If they want to call it a "marriage," they can go to a church that will "wed" them.

did you answer yes or no???????





 

Still baffles me how people care about others' sexuality. I don't understand how giving people the same rights can be bad.



aikohualda said:
RCTjunkie said:
dsgrue3 said:
RCTjunkie said:
The poll shows a slight sense of bias.

Just because someone doesn't approve of Gay Marriage doesn't mean that they want them out of the country or view them as evil demons/lesser persons.....

Provide a compelling argument for disallowing gays to marry without using the terms "The Bible", "I feel", or "Jesus" and I'll entertain it. Otherwise you're simply using religious rhetoric to promote your own bigotry.

1. Making the assumption that I'm a bigot or that I don't even want to allow gays to marry shows how quickly you jump to conclusions.

2. I don't think anyone should get married, at least in the state level. It's technically a religous term and interferes with the Seperation of Church and State. I propose civil unions for any 2 adults that want to be together and they all get the same benefits. If they want to call it a "marriage," they can go to a church that will "wed" them.

did you answer yes or no???????



None of them really apply to my views. I guess "I don't care" would best apply to me of the options.



RCTjunkie said:
dsgrue3 said:

Provide a compelling argument for disallowing gays to marry without using the terms "The Bible", "I feel", or "Jesus" and I'll entertain it. Otherwise you're simply using religious rhetoric to promote your own bigotry.

1. Making the assumption that I'm a bigot or that I don't even want to allow gays to marry shows how quickly you jump to conclusions.

2. I don't think anyone should get married, at least in the state level. It's technically a religous term and interferes with the Seperation of Church and State. I propose civil unions for any 2 adults that want to be together and they all get the same benefits. If they want to call it a "marriage," they can go to a church that will "wed" them.

Lol wow. It's a bit late to say "I don't think marriage should be a state issue", it has been for hundreds of years. Laws don't simply go away because you are opposed to them.

Marriage is not a religious term. At one time it was, but since being recognized by law clearly it is not simply a religious matter.

It's pretty clear you are avoiding discussing your position rationally and are instead proposing hypotheticals which are impossible.



Around the Network

Marriage is a Christian ceremony that the bible explicitly states is for two people of the opposite sex to participate in. The bible explicitly forbids homosexuality so therefore same sex marriage is ridiculous and wrong.

I have no problem with same sex relationships and a civil ceremony of course I have no problem against either. I also have no problem with people in same sex relationships participating in a civil ceremony benefiting from state benefits that people who are married enjoy.

People who don't believe in god also should not be allowed to get married, by adding that into law and creating a recognized civil partnership for those people that gives the same benefits as married people then everything is balanced out.

I challenge anyone to explain to me why this simple explanation is wrong, it is not prejudiced, it is simply against the teaching of said religion.



BradleyJ said:
RCTjunkie said:

Just because someone doesn't approve of Gay Marriage doesn't mean that they want them out of the country or view them as evil demons/lesser persons.....

Sure it does.

No. It doesn't.

OT: Good for France. No matter how late they might be to this...



Yea, it's about time, but I know they didn't want to let the UK get ahead of them on this Civil Rights Issue.

They also approved adoption for married same sex couples. Personally, I think ALL infertile couples who want kids should adopt. I don't understand why people would spend the tens of thousands plus dollars on infertility treatments. I think that money could be used for better things, such as scholarships so more kids could go to college.

It also follows on the lead of Uruguay and New Zealand legalizing it last week.

Same Sex Marriage is inevitable, I still have not heard a good reason to be against it.



 

Really not sure I see any point of Consol over PC's since Kinect, Wii and other alternative ways to play have been abandoned. 

Top 50 'most fun' game list coming soon!

 

Tell me a funny joke!

dsgrue3 said:
RCTjunkie said:
dsgrue3 said:

Provide a compelling argument for disallowing gays to marry without using the terms "The Bible", "I feel", or "Jesus" and I'll entertain it. Otherwise you're simply using religious rhetoric to promote your own bigotry.

1. Making the assumption that I'm a bigot or that I don't even want to allow gays to marry shows how quickly you jump to conclusions.

2. I don't think anyone should get married, at least in the state level. It's technically a religous term and interferes with the Seperation of Church and State. I propose civil unions for any 2 adults that want to be together and they all get the same benefits. If they want to call it a "marriage," they can go to a church that will "wed" them.

Lol wow. It's a bit late to say "I don't think marriage should be a state issue", it has been for hundreds of years. Laws don't simply go away because you are opposed to them.

Marriage is not a religious term. At one time it was, but since being recognized by law clearly it is not simply a religious matter.

It's pretty clear you are avoiding discussing your position rationally and are instead proposing hypotheticals which are impossible.


My position is hypothetic, yes. I honestly don't have a position for the "realistic" scenario at hand.  

And you're right in that marriage is now a state issue instead of a religious one. I'm rather upset by that. With that, I guess with that people can change the definition of marriage to whatever they want because it's at a state level.

I may have read too much into your response, but your belitling and assumptions show me that this debate is going to be fruitless for both of us, so I'll leave my comments as it is.



dsgrue3 said:
RCTjunkie said:
dsgrue3 said:

Provide a compelling argument for disallowing gays to marry without using the terms "The Bible", "I feel", or "Jesus" and I'll entertain it. Otherwise you're simply using religious rhetoric to promote your own bigotry.

1. Making the assumption that I'm a bigot or that I don't even want to allow gays to marry shows how quickly you jump to conclusions.

2. I don't think anyone should get married, at least in the state level. It's technically a religous term and interferes with the Seperation of Church and State. I propose civil unions for any 2 adults that want to be together and they all get the same benefits. If they want to call it a "marriage," they can go to a church that will "wed" them.

Lol wow. It's a bit late to say "I don't think marriage should be a state issue", it has been for hundreds of years. Laws don't simply go away because you are opposed to them.

Marriage is not a religious term. At one time it was, but since being recognized by law clearly it is not simply a religious matter.

It's pretty clear you are avoiding discussing your position rationally and are instead proposing hypotheticals which are impossible.


Incorrect.

Marriage is an entirely religous affair. In the real world more often than not people getting married aren't religious or even believe in god. That is wrong and something that should be corrected at law level. For those people they should be allowed to have a civil ceremony or equivalent of marriage that gives all the same benefits and legal status minus the religous part.

It's blatently obvious that the problem lies with the state here and that both same sex couples - and the people protesting are in the right. It's simply the politicians in all countries don't have the balls to risk their re-election by making drastic changes to law that would prohibit people who admit to not believing in god from getting married and only allowing them civil partnerships - which would be identical to marriage in legal terms.

This may be an impossible and idealistic direction to take things but that's the way it is. There's nothing wrong with proposing a hypothetical solution, even if it will never happen. The whole reason that it is a problem is because no governement would be willing to make it happen.

There is no other just solution that will honour religion and treat same sex couples with fairness that they deserve.