Thread: Gay Marriage
View Single Post
Old April 17th, 2006, 02:33 AM  
MoveAlong
Legendary Member
 
Join Date: April 6, 2006
Gender: Male
Default Re: Gay Marriage

I would of posted more on my last post in here but I posted that at school.
This is a long post, lots of quoting, please read it, do not just blotch it out in your mind. Not trying to spoil the drama or impact by putting this anywhere else in this post I want to let the readers know I am very tired, as it is past midnight in Arizona. I've tryed my best with this post and some things may be jumbled up, but I've looked it over as much as I could and I think I did at least good.
[]
Quote:
Originally Posted by _moo_
It would upset the very balance of nature. I'm sorry, but it does. The fact of the matter is that two people of the same gender cannot have a baby together. Not in the natural way. And so how can it be natural for two people of the same gender to be together in that way, or to have a family? Whatever you say about free rights and such is true, but it still goes against not only my faith as a Christian, but my logic as a person. It just doesn't work naturally, and so it creates complications for the couple, for their families, for any children that they want to adopt later on down the road. It's not natural and its not meant to be.
How is one mother raising one child a family? It's kind of hard to explain what a family is. Let me try something you said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by _moo_
Family is supposed to be secure, stable, dependent, comforting...
I live in an apartment with one cat, one mom, and a lot of bamboo plants that are alive and healthy. I feel secure, stable, dependent, and conforted.
[]

Quote:
Originally Posted by _moo_
The bible would not be a valid argument in a country that gives freedom of religion, true. But it would explain why so many people are opposed to it.
I'm--sorry? What? Here's what I got out of that: "The bible...would explain why so many people are opposed to it". {Lol} Using "it" confuses me. Please explain.
[]

Quote:
Originally Posted by _moo_
But no one can argue with that fact that two women or two men cannot produce children together. The sexual act, though quite pleasureable, is mainly for the reproducing of children. A man and a man cannot perform the sexual act in the way that it was meant to be performed. Same thing with a woman and a woman. So if relationships were meant to be between two people of any gender, then why are we made the way we are?
This one kind of stumped me...Any help here people? Hey koler you sound good for the job, but it doesn't pay in money.
[]

Quote:
Originally Posted by _moo_
Relationships were meant to start with courtship (now called dating, I guess), and then marriage, and then sexual intercourse for the creation of children. Two people of the same gender cannot create children, so why wait until marriage to have sexual intercourse? This leads to the spread of diseases ( which can be spread between man and woman, don't think I'm blaming all STD's on homosexuality), etc.
~You mean romantic realationships.~ My hair dresser Janine would like to get married, but not have kids. She's straight, and rides her croch rocket (motorcycle) to work. One of the main reasons why she doesn't want to have kids is becuase she can't ride her croch rocket 90 mph down a highway without risking her kids not having a parent to see at the end of the day.
[]

Quote:
Originally Posted by _moo_
But there is one thing they haven't found a way around, and that's having biological children together. If two women are "married", or are living together in a marriage like relationship, they cannot have children of their own.
Yes they can't have biological children together. True, but here's what happened on the latest episode on Desprate Housewifes:
Two people wanted to adopt. They get a person already pregnant and waiting to pop. She has the baby, and they get temporary custody of the child. One day the woman lets her housekeeper go to a spa, and herself goes to a resturant while the man's working. She realises, and runs home to the baby, and hugs it, carresses it, and practices yoga with it.
Now forget the temporary custody thing. It doesn't take a biological mother to care for the baby as her own, and the biological mother can have her desision to have give her baby away.
[]

Quote:
Originally Posted by _moo_
So we've found a way around all of that. Different ways of having sexual intercourse (though it cannot really be considered such), involving objects, or using condoms to prevent disease.
Condoms arn't just to prevent disease, but also to prevent having children between straight couples. It's a choice, not a duty to have kids.
[]

Quote:
Originally Posted by _moo_
But there is one thing they haven't found a way around, and that's having biological children together. If two women are "married", or are living together in a marriage like relationship, they cannot have children of their own. Instead, they either have to visit a sperm bank, or enlist the help of a friend or the services of someone to donate sperm. Either way, it that child now has three parents. I even read a case where there was two men and two women who were both in gay relationships, and so one of the men and one of the women had children together. So, those children had four parents! Imagine what it would be like growing up with two moms and two dads. It's like divorce, and it's part of the reason why the world continues to go downhill. I'm not trying to offend anyone with that statement, that's just what I believe.
Well how about straight couples? What if a father can't have kids and is sterile? Maybe a mom goes to a sperm bank where they can have sperm inplanted. Three parents. OR, they adopt. Three parents. There are more straight couples adopting than gay couples.
[]

Quote:
Originally Posted by _moo_
Family is supposed to be secure, stable, dependent, comforting... not confusing. In family, you have the dad to provide, the mom to care for the children (not saying that women can't work, just that the father should be the main provider).
One thing about the bible: It says something along the lines of "one shalt not sleep with a man as those people doeth the with a woman." It sounds to me like the bible is addressed to men. It also says something like "Thoust shaleth not--eth sodomise", furthering my point. And look at us the U.S. with Condi Rice in our third most poerful spot in our counrty! On to "father should be the main provider". That is simply not true. I have heard of some situations where the father is caring for the children, and the mom is the main worker.
[]

Quote:
Originally Posted by _moo_
If you have two women, who's the mom and who's the dad? Or if you have two men, who should be the primary caregiver of the children? It becomes so confusing, and of course it's even harder on the children. There are no longer any distinct roles, which is part of what establishes the stability that I was talking about earlier.
One person at school asked me if I went on a date would I put make-up on. Heck no! He then said "Well there's got to be a man and a woman, right?" No. It's kind of hard and confusing to explain. (Help again, and how am I doing?) Then you go and say "it's confusing for the kids and the parents later on the road". It's that family's problem not yours. It doesn't take a man and a woman to make a family. My version of a family off the top of my head is two or more people who love each other, not exactly IN LOVE with each other.
[]
Before my conclusion, I'd like to quote something.
---
Quote:
Originally Posted by A person in the 17th annual GLAAD Awards
The president puts their hand on the bible and swears to uphold the constitution, not on the constitution swearing to uphold the bible.
[]
You also say natural natural natural, and then some republicans acuse liberals of being hippies. Some things I just don't get about christens/republicans. You say being gay is a sin, but doesn't a sin hurt other people? Such as stealing? Stealing is far worse than loving someone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by What I usually hear from Christens/Republicans
Someone gay could of been straight and helped this society by having children.
That is something that I find to be kind of selfish. How a child turns out (NOT SEXUAL ORIENTATION) is determined by nurture. So how about these adopted kids. Their life could of turned out as the new Stevie Wonder if they were raised by their birth mother/father. One stolen object could of been truthfully bought and used by another person, and have benifited the other person with money or currency. That isn't selfish. It's the truth.
MoveAlong is offline   Reply With Quote