Jump to content

Homosexual Marriage [at Argentina]


Guest DRL

Recommended Posts

Yesterday, at around 1:30 AM,

the 'Legal Homosexual Marriage' decree

was issued, despite facing thought opposition.

Now, here is what I have to say.

The anti-homosexuals cited un-logical, and very

biased words to counter the support of the law,

but hey, not everyone is Chatolic/Christan.

Additionally, the 'scientifical' reasons for blocking

the law were flawed. For example, it was common

to hear "it is a mental illness." If so, why homosexual

people are reported as 'healthy' on hospitals? For example.

Now, what is your input on this. Are you a hardcore religious

person? Or more open-minded? Many of those who favoured

the law were Christians as well.

Personally, what I do not like is exibitionism. BUT, do not

get me wrong - It annoys me to see an homosexual couple

kissing in the park as much as an heterosexual couple doing

the same, at the same place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Robert Monroe

    7

  • "User"

    6

  • Sapphire

    6

  • Konchaski

    3

I'm open-minded to gay marriage, but I do find it annoying when couples are in public and they're like "I love you" "I love you too" "OM NOM NOM NOM" and the face-eating begins. Be they gay or straight, I believe there's a time and place for such behaviour. A light kiss is cute, a snuggle is nice, but actually making out, tongues and everything, in front of everyone just makes it look like they have something to show off. It's not very appropriate. :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Homosexuality makes no sense, scientifically. HOW DO I SHOT REPRODUCTION.

That said, scientific plausibility has as much buisness in politics as religion does for the most part. (Exception: abortion imo)

THAT said, my personal feelings are honestly not giving a damn. I'm religious, and I don't give a damn. Jesus mediated to plenty of people who were for His time considered "abominations", so I think I can at least try to emulate that.

Now what I DO give a damn about is gay pride, but thats another topic for another day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, I'm pretty much a filthy liberal. I'm not particularly religious, although I am spiritual. I like to think I'm open minded on most things.

So pretty much to say - I'm giving a thumbs up for Argentina, if only the principle that they can have equal rights as straight married couples do. If I had a choice though I'd outlaw religion from having any connection to the law all together. They should be completely separate things and strange as this sounds, I believe marriage should be disbanded for everyone because most people have a knee jerk reaction hearing 'gay marriage' and go "ONLY A MAN AND A WOMAN CAN GET MARRIED" without knowing the legal connotations to it.  I would much prefer to have marriage simply become a term for religion or culture - and have all the laws, regarding ownership, the legal standards to be pushed to Civil Unions. Basically, make Civil Unions replace marriage completely by upgrading them to replace it. However, I know for a fact this will play out as politics as usual and as soon as you do that they will probably back completely up without warning and go back on their word.

If it's obvious, I do support Gay Marriage but to me I wish marriage would be eliminated all together in terms of a legal system. A lot of these rich religious-winged organizations are using this as their stepping stone, emphasizing how this is a Christian nation, trying to stop mosques from being built, and become more or less lobbyists to pass laws that normally wouldn't be funded otherwise. I am sadly disappointed with what the Republican Party has become and I know many republicans around my area who are saddened too.

I will also be honest. I am a prude. So people making out with each other, grinding, or sucking face tends to make me uncomfortable. Regardless of the couple.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, I'm pretty much a filthy liberal. I'm not particularly religious, although I am spiritual. I like to think I'm open minded on most things.

So pretty much to say - I'm giving a thumbs up for Argentina, if only the principle that they can have equal rights as straight married couples do. If I had a choice though I'd outlaw religion from having any connection to the law all together. They should be completely separate things and strange as this sounds, I believe marriage should be disbanded for everyone because most people have a knee jerk reaction hearing 'gay marriage' and go "ONLY A MAN AND A WOMAN CAN GET MARRIED" without knowing the legal connotations to it.  I would much prefer to have marriage simply become a term for religion or culture - and have all the laws, regarding ownership, the legal standards to be pushed to Civil Unions. Basically, make Civil Unions replace marriage completely by upgrading them to replace it. However, I know for a fact this will play out as politics as usual and as soon as you do that they will probably back completely up without warning and go back on their word.

If it's obvious, I do support Gay Marriage but to me I wish marriage would be eliminated all together in terms of a legal system. A lot of these rich religious-winged organizations are using this as their stepping stone, emphasizing how this is a Christian nation, trying to stop mosques from being built, and become more or less lobbyists to pass laws that normally wouldn't be funded otherwise. I am sadly disappointed with what the Republican Party has become and I know many republicans around my area who are saddened too.

I will also be honest. I am a prude. So people making out with each other, grinding, or sucking face tends to make me uncomfortable. Regardless of the couple.

I agree almost completely with you, save

for the marriage part. They tried doing that

in the Soviet Union, and that is why people

felt attracted to religion - because they did

not wanted to simply be 'togheter' - they wanted

to be 'married'.

And yeah, homosexual marriages now have

all rights that heterosexual marriages have.

And yes, I think religion has no place between

law - they are two completely different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree almost completely with you, save

for the marriage part. They tried doing that

in the Soviet Union, and that is why people

felt attracted to religion - because they did

not wanted to simply be 'togheter' - they wanted

to be 'married'.

And yeah, homosexual marriages now have

all rights that heterosexual marriages have.

And yes, I think religion has no place between

law - they are two completely different things.

I think the church if it's completely disconnected from the state, has a right to decline marriage as it would be... well, religious. However, they probably could easily find another church to marry them since it could be rooted down to the particular churches' choice. I know for a fact a lot of churches around here can both be catholic and some are very accepting of gay marriage so it could depend from church to church.

And to be fair, the Soviet Union was a giant mess. I don't even know if you could call it communism because by the time it got implemented it was changed into something so twisted from it's original intention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, the main reason religious people oppose gay marriage is because gays have to get married in THEIR churches, which really when you think about it, is being insensitive to their religion. I remember one case where a Jewish rabbi refused to marry a gay couple, and he go in trouble for it, and I don't think that's fair to the rabbi because 1: its his right to decide what he does with his church and 2: he has a right to live his life as his culture dictates. If you were to seperate the religious "culture" aspect of marriage from the legal tender civil unions, you'd have things run a lot smoother. The gays would get their legal rights, and the religious wouldn't have to break their ethics to cater to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If gays wanna get married, let it be, it's their choice.  That's my 2 cents :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Julius Quasar

I oppose it, mostly out of sheer spite and hate, not against gays, mind you, but the non-gay belligerent, elitist, "intellectual", leftist proponents of gay marriage.

:trollface:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I oppose it, mostly out of sheer spite and hate, not against gays, mind you, but the non-gay belligerent, elitist, "intellectual", leftist proponents of gay marriage.

:trollface:

Haha, I'm in the same boat. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I oppose it, mostly out of sheer spite and hate, not against gays, mind you, but the non-gay belligerent, elitist, "intellectual", leftist proponents of gay marriage.

:trollface:

Exept here our 'intellectual' leftlists are

non-existant in practice. The proposition

was called due to intense homosexual

marches and gatherings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I support Argentina for doing this.

(BTW I really hate Fox News and if I find the video I'll show you why)

Seeing as you support that legislation AND hate Fox News it's not hard to see why...  :trollface:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The video had something do with that terrorists are using monkeys and training them to use guns. They then showed a picture of a monkey with a pistol which they clearly knowledged as being photoshoped.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I oppose it, mostly out of sheer spite and hate, not against gays, mind you, but the non-gay belligerent, elitist, "intellectual", leftist proponents of gay marriage.

:trollface:

Ditto!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ditto!

Do I have to quote myself?

Exept here our 'intellectual' leftlists are

non-existant in practice. The proposition

was called due to intense homosexual

marches and gatherings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Still against it.....it just ain't right :oops:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do I have to quote myself?

Why would you have to repeat yourself when we already see where you are coming from with an Argentinian perspective on there being no "intellectual' leftists" in your country?  Robcot94 is just making known his opinion as it relates to what goes on in AMERICA, as is Julius....NOT Argentina  :/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you have to repeat yourself when we already see where you are coming from with an Argentinian perspective on there being no "intellectual' leftists" in your country?  Robcot94 is just making known his opinion as it relates to what goes on in AMERICA, as is Julius....NOT Argentina  :/

:lol: Thanks User :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How intense where the protests?

Around 3 Million of people, combining the

For & Against. In a country of 10 Million people,

that is pretty much a large number. (~33% of population)

Still against it.....it just ain't right :oops:

I would like to hear your reasons as

to 'why' it 'just ain't right'.

Before replying, however, take into account

that you are talking to a moderately anti-religious

atheist, so your reasons must be logical/reasonable ones.

Why would you have to repeat yourself when we already see where you are coming from with an Argentinian perspective on there being no "intellectual' leftists" in your country?  Robcot94 is just making known his opinion as it relates to what goes on in AMERICA, as is Julius....NOT Argentina  :/

"Do not speak, if ye do not know"

*Points to thread title*

If you wish to talk, use non-local reasons.

Otherwise, you will be dealt with local reasons,

REGARDLESS if they are not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before replying, however, take into account

that you are talking to a moderately anti-religious

atheist, so your reasons must be logical/reasonable ones.

Man is NOT to be with man, and Woman is NOT ment to be with Woman. That's all I can say, but it's true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man is NOT to be with man, and Woman is NOT ment to be with Woman. That's all I can say, but it's true.

If you say from a reproductory view,

well, that is right, because man cannot reproduce

with man, and woman cannot reproduce with woman.

But morals and science are two different things.

From a moral view... I am asexual.

As you can see, morals vary. To what one is right,

to the other is wrong. To me, sure, I do not like sex.

But I do not like woman + man sex as much as I do not

like woman + woman or man + man sex. You can see,

morals vary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you say from a reproductory view,

well, that is right, because man cannot reproduce

with man, and woman cannot reproduce with woman.

But morals and science are two different things.

From a moral view... I am asexual.

As you can see, morals vary. To what one is right,

to the other is wrong. To me, sure, I do not like sex.

But I do not like woman + man sex as much as I do not

like woman + woman or man + man sex. You can see,

morals vary.

Ugh.....Julius! Back me up! :lol:

It's just not right. Let's see if Julius can help me  :oops:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...