g@y marriage now permited in NH

[QUOTE="blackacidevil96"]

[QUOTE="battlefront23"] No, I'm saying that I don't think they are equal.battlefront23

i think he is questioning your reasoning in deciding why you claim homosexual love is not equal to heterosexual love.

[QUOTE="blackacidevil96"]

[QUOTE="battlefront23"] No, I'm saying that I don't think they are equal.battlefront23

i think he is questioning your reasoning in deciding why you claim homosexual love is not equal to heterosexual love.

whys that? (is this because of religous beliefs or other reasons?)

So for the folks that oppose it, would that opposition also include opposing a couple one of whom had a sex change to the opposite sex of their partner?

duxup

[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="FastNorwegian"] I just think marriage should be between a man, and a woman. Man & Man can't reproduce, so why would you want to get married? If they are just doing it for benefits, thats loopholing, and pretty wrong. Teenaged

[QUOTE="FastNorwegian"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

I honestly don't understand how you can oppose same-sex marriage. It does not harm anyone.

Care to explain?

You're right! And, in addition, men and women should not be allowed to marry unless they reproduce. Oh, and, of course, I forgot, its not possible for two men to love each other-they must just be looking for benefits!

:roll:

Aren't the same? Because they aren't the same. Not meaning to be rude, but I thought I made it obvious what I meant there. Aren't equal? Because heterosexual couples produce more for a society, are more Biblically (sp?) grounded, and are better suited to raise the next generation.battlefront23

I disagree with the last statement. Explain how homosexuals are less suited to raise a child than a straight couple.

[QUOTE="FastNorwegian"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] There are plenty of heterosexual married couples that are unable to reproduce...-Sun_Tzu-

Thank you for your opinion, here is mine:

A family is the point in marriage. To keep a family name going. You don't have to be married to be in love.

[QUOTE="battlefront23"] Aren't the same? Because they aren't the same. Not meaning to be rude, but I thought I made it obvious what I meant there. Aren't equal? Because heterosexual couples produce more for a society, are more Biblically (sp?) grounded, and are better suited to raise the next generation.effena

I disagree with the last statement. Explain how homosexuals are less suited to raise a child than a straight couple.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="battlefront23"] I agree, but I do believe they should have the liberty to get married. I do, however, think that homosexual love and heterosexual love are not the same and are not equal.battlefront23

You have not explained why homosexual love is inferior to heterosexual love though. And when I say inferior not in importance (I will kill myself before seeing love from the scope of necessity/importance in utilitarian goals), but in essence. The emotion itself.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="battlefront23"] I agree, but I do believe they should have the liberty to get married. I do, however, think that homosexual love and heterosexual love are not the same and are not equal.battlefront23

i dont see anyway that sexual preference could change ones contribution to society.(not touching the biblical part, too many religion threads these days). but how are they better suited to raise the next generation? a homosexual couple that teaches a child to love, and do whats right. and make good choices is far better suited than a heterosexual couple that beats their child or refuses to support them. its not about the sexual choice its about what they teach the child about life.

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="FastNorwegian"] :roll: *facepalm* We had this discussion last time a state got a gay marriage-Go. Anyone can be in love(and you don't have to get married to be in love), and society looks down on unmarried couples who have children, and since most of society is still religious, marriage is the only way to start a family and have a child without being the 'scum'. Sounds weird, but it's true. If my wife, and I had a child before we were married, my our families would probably be pretty upset, as opposed to getting married then having a child. Funny what a few words and a ring can do. Then I figure there is no need to be married. I'm not starting this again dude, FastNorwegian

Thank you for your opinion, here is mine:

A family is the point in marriage. To keep a family name going. You don't have to be married to be in love.

[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Um why?

Teenaged

You have not explained why homosexual love is inferior to heterosexual love though. And when I say inferior not in importance (I will kill myself before seeing love from the scope of necessity/importance in utilitarian goals), but in essence. The emotion itself.

You would get this story from Communist News Network....Masterdj1992

[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="Teenaged"]Um why?

blackacidevil96

i dont see anyway that sexual preference could change ones contribution to society.(not touching the biblical part, too many religion threads these days). but how are they better suited to raise the next generation? a homosexual couple that teaches a child to love, and do whats right. and make good choices is far better suited than a heterosexual couple that beats their child or refuses to support them. its not about the sexual choice its about what they teach the child about life.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="battlefront23"] Aren't the same? Because they aren't the same. Not meaning to be rude, but I thought I made it obvious what I meant there. Aren't equal? Because heterosexual couples produce more for a society, are more Biblically (sp?) grounded, and are better suited to raise the next generation.battlefront23

You have not explained why homosexual love is inferior to heterosexual love though. And when I say inferior not in importance (I will kill myself before seeing love from the scope of necessity/importance in utilitarian goals), but in essence. The emotion itself.

I assumed you did because it is a common misconception that gay people are just sexually driven, meaning their sexuality seen as deviant is a perversion which aims only at sex, and that it has no real love involved.

EDIT: I wouldnt call the uneducated, but reasons that stem from being reluctant to accept anything new. Now this may sound weird to say to a relatively young person but dont think that the new generations are free of stereotypes and obsolete ideas hardwired in them by the way they were raised (not in reference to the actual parenthood of their parents but more like the societal frame).

Its just that my belief is that as we grow up we ought to not hold anything we have been "given" as de facto valid; not meaning that we should defy them at every chance, but at least when our logic dictates to, we should not hold a defensive stance saying "no I wont give up on my ideals".

[QUOTE="FastNorwegian"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Even if we were to assume that marriage is the only way to start a family, that does not in any way mean that the only point to marriage is to start a family. A very weak induction on your part.

-Sun_Tzu-

Thank you for your opinion, here is mine:

A family is the point in marriage. To keep a family name going. You don't have to be married to be in love.

... And yet, the sky is not falling? Say is not so! :o

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

You're right! And, in addition, men and women should not be allowed to marry unless they reproduce. Oh, and, of course, I forgot, its not possible for two men to love each other-they must just be looking for benefits!

:roll:

AngelofDeath213

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="FastNorwegian"]

Thank you for your opinion, here is mine:

A family is the point in marriage. To keep a family name going. You don't have to be married to be in love.

duxup

[QUOTE="blackacidevil96"]

[QUOTE="battlefront23"] No, I'm saying that I don't think they are equal.battlefront23

i think he is questioning your reasoning in deciding why you claim homosexual love is not equal to heterosexual love.

[QUOTE="duxup"]

So for the folks that oppose it, would that opposition also include opposing a couple one of whom had a sex change to the opposite sex of their partner?

mattykovax

[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="blackacidevil96"]

i think he is questioning your reasoning in deciding why you claim homosexual love is not equal to heterosexual love.

Bourbons3

[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="blackacidevil96"]

i think he is questioning your reasoning in deciding why you claim homosexual love is not equal to heterosexual love.

Bourbons3

[QUOTE="FastNorwegian"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] Even if we were to assume that marriage is the only way to start a family, that does not in any way mean that the only point to marriage is to start a family. A very weak induction on your part.

-Sun_Tzu-

Thank you for your opinion, here is mine:

A family is the point in marriage. To keep a family name going. You don't have to be married to be in love.

You don't need solidification to be in love either. I knew I was truly in love far before I was married.

Andno, in the religion world, the majority, religion is basically so you can have a child without sinning.

[QUOTE="mattykovax"][QUOTE="duxup"]

So for the folks that oppose it, would that opposition also include opposing a couple one of whom had a sex change to the opposite sex of their partner?

warbmxjohn

FastNorwegian

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="FastNorwegian"]

Thank you for your opinion, here is mine:

A family is the point in marriage. To keep a family name going. You don't have to be married to be in love.

duxup

But thats how the majority rolls in the USA(taking a last name), and in the USA, majority wins!

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"]

[QUOTE="FastNorwegian"]

Thank you for your opinion, here is mine:

A family is the point in marriage. To keep a family name going. You don't have to be married to be in love.

FastNorwegian

You don't need solidification to be in love either. I knew I was truly in love far before I was married.

Andno, in the religion world, the majority, religion is basically so you can have a child without sinning.

in the USA, majority wins!

FastNorwegian

[QUOTE="mattykovax"][QUOTE="duxup"]

So for the folks that oppose it, would that opposition also include opposing a couple one of whom had a sex change to the opposite sex of their partner?

warbmxjohn

I would love to see my aunt make that argument, shes a born again Christian and had a boob job.

[QUOTE="FastNorwegian"]AngelofDeath213

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="FastNorwegian"] I just think marriage should be between a man, and a woman. Man & Man can't reproduce, so why would you want to get married? If they are just doing it for benefits, thats loopholing, and pretty wrong. FastNorwegian

You're right! And, in addition, men and women should not be allowed to marry unless they reproduce. Oh, and, of course, I forgot, its not possible for two men to love each other-they must just be looking for benefits!

:roll:

Actually, marriage is a legal status. ;)

[QUOTE="Masterdj1992"]You would get this story from Communist News Network....Bourbons3

[QUOTE="blackacidevil96"]

[QUOTE="battlefront23"] Aren't the same? Because they aren't the same. Not meaning to be rude, but I thought I made it obvious what I meant there. Aren't equal? Because heterosexual couples produce more for a society, are more Biblically (sp?) grounded, and are better suited to raise the next generation.battlefront23

i dont see anyway that sexual preference could change ones contribution to society.(not touching the biblical part, too many religion threads these days). but how are they better suited to raise the next generation? a homosexual couple that teaches a child to love, and do whats right. and make good choices is far better suited than a heterosexual couple that beats their child or refuses to support them. its not about the sexual choice its about what they teach the child about life.

i for one feel those roles where defined by a society that is no longer important. one that says women need to do such things and men should do others. having a male and female role switch places (such as a stay at home dad). in no way effects how a child is raised. to me the one that does a better job is the one that best prepares their child for their future while showing them love the whole way. at the end of the day its the child that will eventually chooses their future. and while a parent plays an important role their brain is still their own and the sexuallity of a parents cannot effect that. men and women play the roles they choose to play not the ones defined by the mass majority and as such have the same potential in rasing a child in a "proper" fashion

[QUOTE="duxup"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] But marriage represents the solidification of that love, and having children is not a requirement for marriage.

FastNorwegian

But thats how the majority rolls in the USA(taking a last name), and in the USA, majority wins!

[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"][QUOTE="mattykovax"]I do not think I have seen this question before.Ingenemployee

I would love to see my aunt make that argument, shes a born again Christian and had a boob job.

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"][QUOTE="battlefront23"] Oh well I believe heterosexual love is more important than homosexual. And no, not just because heterosexual couples can produce...battlefront23

[QUOTE="Ingenemployee"]

[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"]The answer would probably be along the lines of "sex changes are immoral and wrong, God made you what you are for a reason!"warbmxjohn

I would love to see my aunt make that argument, shes a born again Christian and had a boob job.

Que The Twilight Zone music

[QUOTE="FastNorwegian"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

You're right! And, in addition, men and women should not be allowed to marry unless they reproduce. Oh, and, of course, I forgot, its not possible for two men to love each other-they must just be looking for benefits!

:roll:

Actually, marriage is a legal status. ;)

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="FastNorwegian"] I never said they were always looking for benefits, but since marriage is a religious thing, and in religion it is immoral to have a chlid before marriage. You don't have to be married to be in love. I love my family, but it would sick to marry a family member. Love is love. Sexual attraction is different. FastNorwegian

Actually, marriage is a legal status. ;)

[QUOTE="Bourbons3"][QUOTE="Masterdj1992"]You would get this story from Communist News Network....FastNorwegian

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="FastNorwegian"] I never said they were always looking for benefits, but since marriage is a religious thing, and in religion it is immoral to have a chlid before marriage. You don't have to be married to be in love. I love my family, but it would sick to marry a family member. Love is love. Sexual attraction is different. FastNorwegian

Actually, marriage is a legal status. ;)

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="battlefront23"] I agree, but I do believe they should have the liberty to get married. I do, however, think that homosexual love and heterosexual love are not the same and are not equal.battlefront23

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="FastNorwegian"] I never said they were always looking for benefits, but since marriage is a religious thing, and in religion it is immoral to have a chlid before marriage. You don't have to be married to be in love. I love my family, but it would sick to marry a family member. Love is love. Sexual attraction is different. FastNorwegian

Actually, marriage is a legal status. ;)

in the united state marriage is no longer a religous affiliation. it became secular when the government decided to get involved. this cannot be denied.

[QUOTE="duxup"] Keeping the family name going is also not a requirement for marriage.

But thats how the majority rolls in the USA(taking a last name), and in the USA, majority wins!

What exactly does this legal status represent? Marriage was around before the USA believe or not. In the Bible, and today, I think it is more than just a legal status.FastNorwegian

In the United States, if you're a man and a woman, you can just go and get a marriage certificate, and bam, you're married. Any religious aspects are purely ceremonial.

[QUOTE="battlefront23"][QUOTE="blackacidevil96"]

i dont see anyway that sexual preference could change ones contribution to society.(not touching the biblical part, too many religion threads these days). but how are they better suited to raise the next generation? a homosexual couple that teaches a child to love, and do whats right. and make good choices is far better suited than a heterosexual couple that beats their child or refuses to support them. its not about the sexual choice its about what they teach the child about life.

blackacidevil96

i for one feel those roles where defined by a society that is no longer important. one that says women need to do such things and men should do others. having a male and female role switch places (such as a stay at home dad). in no way effects how a child is raised. to me the one that does a better job is the one that best prepares their child for their future while showing them love the whole way. at the end of the day its the child that will eventually chooses their future. and while a parent plays an important role their brain is still their own and the sexuallity of a parents cannot effect that. men and women play the roles they choose to play not the ones defined by the mass majority and as such have the same potential in rasing a child in a "proper" fashion