AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Do you believe that homosexuals should be able to get married?

276 45343
almostsilver
offline
almostsilver
48 posts
Nomad

It is my opinion that they should be able to do anything that straight people can do. The fact that we are restricting them from getting married reminds me to much of the restrictions we placed upon women and blacks which most people would agree were terrible. I would also like to point out that I am not gay, I just believe in the freedom of the people.
Feel free to post the opposing side of this as always.

  • 276 Replies
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

And at last, humans are not animals


Are you serious? You don't think humans are animals? /facepalm
Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,085 posts
Nomad

If you rearrange lliaTroff it almost becomes fail troll and quite frankly I think that's what you are.

A. Humans are animals - quite obvious really (Psst, We're mammals)
B. You know what your 'genetic disorder' bullcrap is? It's bullcrap!
C. I was informed that eating other humans was called Cannibalism and it's generally frowned upon by Human Rights activists and non-cannibals.

Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

And at last, humans are not animals, I mean sharks are allowed to eat humans, why can't we? Don't be ridiculous.


You don't be ridiculous. How does this seriously have any relevancy towards homosexuality?

Oh, and yes. Humans are animals.
benman113
offline
benman113
329 posts
Peasant

It doesn't harm anyone's rights aslong as they don't shove it down peoples throuts what matter does it make

MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

I think I'm going to decide to be a homosexual christian and I want to be married by the pope in the sistine chapel. Think they'll go for it? I mean, they do preach about love and tolerance.

wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,437 posts
Farmer

Because our Constitution states that any provision not provided by the Constitution or any subsequent amendments falls on the states to determine for themselves. Since there is no amendment to the Constitution regarding marriage then it falls on the state to determine what they will or will not recognize


I hope I'm not the only one who finds this flawed in so many ways. I might be being biased here, but either way I prefer my style of government. (A patriotic Canadian that'll get you wondering)
AircraftCarrier
offline
AircraftCarrier
145 posts
Shepherd

A patriotic Canadian means nothing, man.

MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

I hope I'm not the only one who finds this flawed in so many ways. I might be being biased here, but either way I prefer my style of government. (A patriotic Canadian that'll get you wondering)


The original intention was to promote a small central government with very limited power. The founders of the US did not believe that a large and powerful government was in the best interests of the people and saw great opportunities for the manipulation of such a system so that's why have our system of checks and balances as well as providing for many decisions and laws to be made at the state level.
DavidPatriots
offline
DavidPatriots
6 posts
Nomad

no

MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

no


No? No what? Perhaps you would like to elaborate. Perhaps explain your position and your reasoning behind it. Otherwise you have nothing to contribute to the thread so please quit with the useless posts.
wolf1991
offline
wolf1991
3,437 posts
Farmer

The original intention was to promote a small central government with very limited power. The founders of the US did not believe that a large and powerful government was in the best interests of the people and saw great opportunities for the manipulation of such a system so that's why have our system of checks and balances as well as providing for many decisions and laws to be made at the state level.


It looks nice on paper, but the practice has led to, in my opinion the ability to descriminate against minorities with ease. Again I point to California who had legalized gay marriages but rescinded when parts of the population grew upset over the law.
MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

It looks nice on paper, but the practice has led to, in my opinion the ability to descriminate against minorities with ease.


And that's different that if it had been allowed and then rescinded at a national level? That issue affected only California, not the other 49 states, and there are some states that still allow and openly recognize same sex marriage. That would not be the case if it were up to the federal government, I can assure you of that.
Drink
offline
Drink
1,621 posts
Blacksmith

they should be married but not allowed to adopt espically adopting little kids they would give me lots of confusion

MRWalker82
offline
MRWalker82
4,005 posts
Shepherd

they should be married but not allowed to adopt espically adopting little kids they would give me lots of confusion


Yep, you get one too....

http://touchcream.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/jesus-facepalm.jpg
Avorne
offline
Avorne
3,085 posts
Nomad

Wow, Drink failed so hard I think I just broke my nose with facepalming.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3131/2313356652_f2b27826c4.jpg

Showing 241-255 of 276