12 Reasons Why Gays Should Not Be Allowed To Marry


Pahoran
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest Starsky

Originally posted by sgallan@Mar 10 2004, 02:17 PM

*** driving a car...if you want to have a job, or get food, or take your kids to school...isn't an option...it's a gotto. ***

Funny, I have heard people in court say that very same thing.....

...... right before the Judge took their license away.

Yes...of course...everything has to be done responsibily....which is why homosexuality isn't a good thing...it is as irresponsible as driving backwards...or driving from the passengers seat... ;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 242
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

**** Yes...of course...everything has to be done responsibily....which is why homosexuality isn't a good thing...it is as irresponsible as driving backwards...or driving from the passengers seat... ****

Yet another reaosn for committed monogomous marraige type relationship - yet another good argument for homosexual unions. And for those who are dangerously irresponsible, whether it be drunk drivers, or people who knowlingly pass along fatal virsus, or those who drive from the passenger seat (driving backwards is often necessary).... through the book at them.

Actually, I am sort of think along the lines of the Duck now though; only Lesbians should be allowed to get married.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

**** Maybe homosexual men are less likely to want to form long-term relationships than heterosexual men are. Maybe it's the other way around. I'll have to do a little research on that. I do think that men, gay or straight, are less likely to want to form long-term relationships than women, gay or straight. *****

Please research it and let me know. Try to find something middle of the road. But otherwise you are talking about treating people differently, as societal deviants even, on heresay. Is that fair?

**** Well, that's obvious. You can only live so long on Top Ramen. *****

I dunno. I think it's more of a function of bacterial problems from the bathrooms; younger men are immune. Older men are not. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As long as homosexuality is not made compulsary, why would we be bothered by it? ;) (That was a joke, btw)

Presumably there'd have to be gay divorce and gay alimony, too?

I cannot see the point of gay marriage. But then, why would I? I am not gay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bizabra
Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Mar 10 2004, 12:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Mar 10 2004, 12:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--sgallan@Mar 10 2004, 12:15 PM

*** except to point out that homosexual sex has serious risks, ****

Any sex does. So does driving cars. Living is a sure way to die. How absurd do you want to get?

Not very. Obviously, it would be absurd to try to eliminate risk entirely. But there's a world of difference in the levels of risk between sex in the context of fidelity to your spouse, at one end of the spectrum, and the anonymous barebacked bathhouse encounter on the other. To deny that is as absurd as it can get.

Prostitution is also risky sexual behviour, and it's engaged in by lots and lots of hets. LOL

No-one would aruge that folks who engage in risky practices are rolling the dice. Some get lucky but most don't. ALL humans do this in the things they choose to do, be it sexual activity or mountain climbing, or riding a horse or a bike. I would not choose to engage in prostitution, I don't want the risk (not to mention the absolute gross ickyness of the idea, YIKES! :huh: but I do ride a motorcycle and drive a car. It's all a matter of the sort of risk you are willing to take and what you want to risk doing and why. Free agency at work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest bizabra

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 10 2004, 04:09 PM

Scott -- I'm afraid I may have been sucked into a tangent here. The heightened risk gay sex raises of a particular disease doesn't have much to do with whether it is moral or not. That's apparently Peace's position; it's not mine. (Although I suppose that an otherwise morally-neutral, high-risk activity like cave diving could become immoral if it's done by a person with responsibilities, like a parent.)

As to whether "gay marriage" will reduce risky gay behavior, see my response to Curvette on the subject, way above. I don't think it will. From the looks of things, the homosexual people who are more likely to really want the incidents of marriage (as opposed to just a social affirmation of their practice) tend to be lesbians, who don't typically have the same AIDS risks involved with their particular practices as gay men do. I doubt that allowing men to "marry" each other would have much effect on their natural promiscuity. It's hard enough to prevent extramarital wanderings when only one of the marriage partners is male. On the other hand, I do think it's reasonable that an increased societal tolerance for homosexuality will lead to more expression of gay impulses by people who are currently on the fence; increased social tolerance for a thing invariably increases its marginal incidence. So I think it's reasonable to expect that under a "gay marriage" regime, you'd have lots of committed lesbians and a few committed gay men -- but you'd also have an increased number of gay men generally, the majority of whom won't be interested in long-term marriage.

In other words, "gay marriage" or no, I don't expect the bathhouses to empty. Men will be men, and will be even more so without women forcing ... er, "encouraging"* them to settle down.

*In case my wife ever reads this.

Society changes and matures.

And not always for the better. Usually -- I'm not one of those who thinks the world is going to hell on roller skates -- but not always.

It's actually sex with MEN that is the risk factor for sexually transmitted diseases. :o Lesbians have the lowest incidence per capita of STD's in all categories. Chew on THAT for a while, eh. . . . . . . . . .
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad to see that it is dawning on most of us that there is really no good reasoning that says that gays should be discriminated against, or that they shouldn't be able to be in a legally commited relationship.

After all, don't we mormons believe in commitment? Why should we be fighting the fact that gays want to make lasting commitments? Does it change the meaning of marriage for the rest of us. I don't see how.

I'll tell you why the church is sooooo afaid of a court ruling that would give constitutional sanction to gay marriage. If you can't figure it out I will tell you. A SC ruling that accords the right of gays to marry, could easily be written and construed to nullify the Robinson case (the SC anti-polygamy case). If that were to happen, the church would be faced with a real doctrinal dilema--that is, "now that polygamy is legal again, do we let mormons practice what is still in our scriptures and was considered an important qualifier for the celestial kingdom by BY, John Taylor etc."

If you think the present leaders of the church want to deal with that issue, you had better think twice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Starsky

Originally posted by Cal@Mar 14 2004, 10:29 AM

I'm glad to see that it is dawning on most of us that there is really no good reasoning that says that gays should be discriminated against, or that they shouldn't be able to be in a legally commited relationship.

After all, don't we mormons believe in commitment? Why should we be fighting the fact that gays want to make lasting commitments? Does it change the meaning of marriage for the rest of us. I don't see how.

I'll tell you why the church is sooooo afaid of a court ruling that would give constitutional sanction to gay marriage. If you can't figure it out I will tell you. A SC ruling that accords the right of gays to marry, could easily be written and construed to nullify the Robinson case (the SC anti-polygamy case). If that were to happen, the church would be faced with a real doctrinal dilema--that is, "now that polygamy is legal again, do we let mormons practice what is still in our scriptures and was considered an important qualifier for the celestial kingdom by BY, John Taylor etc."

If you think the present leaders of the church want to deal with that issue, you had better think twice.

Interesting point...but I think we should not be for legalizing immoral behavior.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll tell you why the church is sooooo afaid of a court ruling that would give constitutional sanction to gay marriage. If you can't figure it out I will tell you. A SC ruling that accords the right of gays to marry, could easily be written and construed to nullify the Robinson case (the SC anti-polygamy case). If that were to happen, the church would be faced with a real doctrinal dilema--that is, "now that polygamy is legal again, do we let mormons practice what is still in our scriptures and was considered an important qualifier for the celestial kingdom by BY, John Taylor etc."

Interesting point!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Starsky

Originally posted by sgallan@Mar 14 2004, 06:45 PM

Interesting point...but I think we should not be for legalizing immoral behavior.****

What makes it immoral?

Maybe a better word would be 'perversion'...but aren't perversions immoral?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless, only if it is lewd will people not tolerate it. It is up to the people to decide if it is moral or not. You can call it either equality or lewd acts. It's up to the people. That's why you have places like Vegas and Salt Lake City different from each other. The people that live in each area tolerate and allow different things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

****Maybe a better word would be 'perversion'...but aren't perversions immoral? ****

Why would they all necessarily be considered immoral? There was a time oral sex would have been considered a perversion and immoral. Now it's generally not considered as such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...

Its a doctrinal isssue boys and girls. and there is just no argueing it. every prophet from Adam to Monson has declaired homosexuality to be immoral and against the natrual order that the lord has established.. you dont have to like it .. you dont have to live it... you can try and rationalize your way out of it all you want ..but the the "fact" will still remain that a homosexual relationship is contrary to the laws of God .. always has been ..always will be.

And let me be clear hear its the "Sex" thats the issue. because no one has ever had a problem with two men or two weman liveing together publicly saying they love each other. or even saying that their in commited relationship. Its when they try to change the moral compass of the society by saying that haveing a sexual relationship with someone of your own Gender should be a accepted norm in the socetiy that the problem arises.

And to make the argument the gay marriage is a civil issue and not a moral one is a half lie. because every civilized society sints the beging of civilized society had based its civil laws on its moral code. and like it or not the moral code of the U.S. has always been based on judao Christion beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share