Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

djpark121

Members
  • Content Count

    62
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About djpark121

  • Rank
    Full Member
  1. Who knows what can happen in the U.S. After all, it was the first true democratic nation, where all types of people are supposed to get equal rights... .Of course homosexuality isn't against the law. Gay marriage is, which is the issue being discussed at present.
  2. I know right. If gay people can get married, why shouldn't other types of people. Liberals are afraid to acknowledge this fact, so they dismiss it as an unlikely outcome. Well, to conservative eyes, gay marriage was never perceived to be a likely outcome.
  3. Here is an article from the Washington Times on Scandinavia. Do we really want this to happen in the United States?
  4. We need to draw that line here. I KNEW something like this would happen. This is getting to the point of absurdity, where all types of people are starting to demand rights. Pedophiles?? What do you have to say to that overdose, or are you too deluded to realize the enormity of this situation?
  5. BD, if the way that marriage benefits society is through having children, starting a family, raising those kids to become strong members of society, how can gay people do that? Sure they can adopt, but how many of them are willling to? It doesn't make sense that they would adopt for one, because if a person wanted to have kids, they would have sex with someone of the opposite sex so they can have their own. You can't tell me that a person prefers adopting a kid over having their own. Now, heterosexual marriages obviously are not perfect and not all families turn out to be beneficial to society. But as I've said, the potential is there. With gay marriage, there is no potential. When I said rights are unalienable, I was merely referring what the DI stated. It is not my personal opinion that rights are unalienable. I still believe that rights, when abused should be taken away. The founding fathers failed to see that some of these unalienable rights would be used in the ways that they have been used today, and if they knew, they would've changed the DI and the Constitution accordingly.
  6. I'd like to hear some reasoning as to why marriage strengthens society and how gay marriage would undermine that. I have never said that gay marriage would undermine society in anyway. What I actually said was that they lack the potential to strengthen society. As for the rights issue, should a government allow people to have rights if those rights are abused, or even pointless? Yes they are unalienable, but in my opinion, rights are to be used, and used correctly, otherwise they should not be held.
  7. I don't know why people hold the belief that marriage is a church issue. Then again, it is really a matter of perception and how a couple wants to be recognized. If a couple wanted to be Catholic, they would not be recognized if they were married according to the state, unless they followed the Catholic procedure. Vice versa. Obviously gay couples want to be recognized by the state. The argument that gay people are being deprived of their rights is just silly. The only "right" they are being "deprived" of is marriage; they have the right to do everything else, including having sex. Sure marriage is a right, but as many people have pointed out so far, it's for promoting strong families, something gay people can't do. Rights should be rights only if people will use those rights and be conducive to society. The freedoms of speech, press, expression are all conducive and promoting to society, just to give a few examples. Yes, heterosexual marriages can turn out bad, and maybe even turn out to hurt society, but as Ender pointed out, marriage is something you have to work at and the potential is there. Gay marriage however, is in no way conducive to society and there is no potential to give back to the society that provides these rights, in terms of marriage. Yes, it's really about whether two people love each other, but three or twenty people can love each other too.
  8. Well then, my point is proven. I wasn't aware that Mormons could practice polygamy in the U.S. however, which is the main country concerned. Those who practice polygamy might start demanding rights of married people. If we allow homosexuals to get the same rights of heterosexually married people, why can't those who practice polygamy get the same rights? They're "married," right? This is why an amendment to the marriage act must be ratified, to prevent confusion.
  9. Very good points, righturnonred. Homosexuality does in fact appear to be a mental disease, and one that's uncontrollable, supposedly. No one can really tell another to change their sexual preferences because it is a biological inclination. However, marriage is ridiculous. Like you said, it mocks it. Like I have stated before, homosexuality opens many other doors that shouldn't be. Transexuality is considered a mental disorder and cannot be significantly differentiated from homosexuality. But should they be allowed to marry? What if people start switching genders and demanding the right to marry? This might be bizarre, but what if three people want to get married, all to each other as a group and want legal benefits for that? Folks, allowing homosexuals to marry could easily turn into chaos, disorder, and atrophy of the norm. Marriage is a beautiful thing, done correctly. Why must we taint and distort it?
  10. Bush, yes the majority of those who oppose gay marriage might be Christians, and yes they might appear to be filled with hatred. That is unfortunate. Christianity innately preaches tolerance and even love for everyone. One of the sayings in Christianity is to hate the sin, but love the sinner, which I think is perfectly reasonable. However, many Christians can deviate from this type of thinking. I for one, have nothing against the homosexual and would not refrain from even getting to know some. However, I will always disapprove of a homosexuality. It is hard for me to say that homosexuality is a mental disease. Lust and the need to have sex are natural things. Homosexuality is the same, but perhaps in the wrong way. However, I also agree that though their practices might be detestable, they are not different people in any way. One liberal contention that I've noticed is that government should not have the right to define marriage, and nobody really can for that matter. Yet at the same time, homosexuals want legal recognition of being a couple and the benefits that come along with that as well. How interesting.
  11. Dean- the madman has quit! America is saved! Not that he would've won. Now Bush has just a fake and an insulter to the Vietnam veterans to get rid of.
  12. The argument here seems to be that gays are born with the gene. Maybe they are. Nevertheless, they can control their sexuality. However, like I stated earlier, the more important issue is the issue of marriage, which is a heterosexual thing. Homosexuals can control not being married, I'm assuming. Homosexual practice, and getting married are both very controllable things. The argument of the gay gene appears to portray homosexuality as a mental disease. Folks, it is not. Kleptomania, is an example of an uncontrollable disease. Homosexuality is not. I would also like to point out that just because it's a gene, and "uncontrollable," it is right. Just because Kleptomaniacs cannot control their stealing, doesn't mean what they do is right, or should be acknowledged in anyway. Marriage is clearly a heterosexual thing and should remain so, I do not see it any other way. It's insulting when homosexuals try to hijack the institution of marriage to get financial benefits.
  13. Bush and Mr. Hardner, While the exposing of the breast may have been intentional, and being gay and human is not, getting married is. That is the issue here. I have nothing against practicing homosexuals, but when they try to be a part of something they're not, and never really will be, that's a problem. Regardless of who was truly behind the inappropriate halftime show, the point is still the same.
  14. I don't know if you liberals saw the SuperBowl halftime show, but I'm assuming all of you disapproved and were extremely uncomfortable with the exotic scenes that went on. I don't understand why openly gay marriage is any different. It can only be that those who did not care about things that like the SuperBowl halftime show being shown on tv, that are supporters of gay marriage. Gay marriage is a flagrant display of what is not the norm. Just like many parents wouldn't want their 4-year olds watching this year's SuperBowl halftime show, following the logic, I'm assuming they wouldn't their 4-year old asking why best friend Billy has two moms. Why is it any different?
  15. Marriage has always been a heterosexual institution, and should remain so. For homosexuals to hijack this heterosexual institution is immoral and undermining. They cannot be given the same rights for something which they are not innately a part of. This is not prejudice, it is logic.
×
×
  • Create New...