Debate: Gay Marriages

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
if you want to have sex, it should be without protection, because that should only be shared with someone you'd devote your entire live to, seeing as protected sex is the same as gay sex, You get nothing from it, but what we call ecstacy(Pleasure)

:s

---

Um, what? You are kidding right?

Well if that's the case, I should never have sex, because I don't think I ever want kids... (It's undecided for now)

I do agree with you that you should only have sex with the one you love and only them, the person you want to share your life with... But I think it's dumb for them not to use protected sex if they want... Lots of people don't want kids, what's wrong with that? Sex is love making... I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to share that love, but not wanting to have kids.

@Only-now: You're right; it's not gonna change my mind, but I am interested in what you have to say nonetheless.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by A-non-a-mus
I agree, sex should never mean 'pleasure' ... for if it does, it's likely to not be about love atall... just some desire... with gays... there's no reason for sex... most people will confuse sex for 'love' or has some "if you love 'em you have to have sex with 'em" thing... but no... if it were true love, it'd not need to depend on sex... unfortunatly, for gays, this means they are more like good friends rather than a couple. Thus is not really built on love, rather, merely a lust or strong desire... or perhaps there's a missing hole you are trying to fill, yet can't for some reason. Thus resorting to sex...

---

Again, not what I was saying at all. No, I don't think you should have sex simply because of pleasure.. but I am not saying that gay sex is pointless either. You're right, love shouldn't depend on sex.. but I agree with Sharifu.

And "good friends"? Buh? So.. relationships are not based on sex, but if you don't have sex, you're just friends. Riiiight.

Two guys or two girls can have just as much of a loving relationship as a girl and a guy.. just because they're the same gender, it's automatically not love, just lust? Maybe it's because it's late, but I'm not really following this.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
if you want to have sex, it should be without protection

---

Uhh, I disagree and I agree with Fu'ey and Sombi on this one.

I know people who use protection for having sex mostly because they don't want kids yet--they do it for love making instead. I don't blame them either. You don't have to have sex with or without protection. It just comes by preference and choice really--like for example, if the couple want a baby then try plan A (without protection) but if the couple doesn't want a baby then try plan B and use some sort of protection.

If you get what I mean?

Quote:

---

that should only be shared with someone you'd devote your entire live to

---

But yeah, I do agree with what you said about only having sex with the person you love and them only.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sombolia
You're right, love shouldn't depend on sex..

---

Yeah, I do agree with that. But still I think it's a good idea to use protection, for the reasons I said before.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sombolia
Again, not what I was saying at all. No, I don't think you should have sex simply because of pleasure.. but I am not saying that gay sex is pointless either. You're right, love shouldn't depend on sex.. but I agree with Sharifu.

And "good friends"? Buh? So.. relationships are not based on sex, but if you don't have sex, you're just friends. Riiiight.

---

not quite what I was trying to say... I know sex isn't pointless, ... yet also I know it should be the end result... shouldn't have sex until you complete the triangle of love first...

and about the ''good friends' thing, I didn't mean it like 'no sex = no relationship' ... nono, What I ment was more along the lines of, good friends can enjoy being around other friends, eat together/etc ... and even so much as hug... however, what more can a gay whom doesn't go for sex do? ... smooch? ... invade the other's personal space?... really there's not much more they can do.. as 'good friends' do... (apart from smooching, etc) that's what I ment to say ...

EDIT:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sharifu
Sex is love making...

---

not true... you can NOT 'make' love, love is just there... though, I know what you mean to say 'sex is an end result of a show of passion and love you share for the other' ... In my opinion, that's what it should remain as...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sharifu
Um, what? You are kidding right?

Well if that's the case, I should never have sex, because I don't think I ever want kids... (It's undecided for now)

I do agree with you that you should only have sex with the one you love and only them, the person you want to share your life with... But I think it's dumb for them not to use protected sex if they want... Lots of people don't want kids, what's wrong with that? Sex is love making... I don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to share that love, but not wanting to have kids.

---

Mkay you disagree, so you say now

that if you want to show your love to someone, you have sex with them Cause that is so what I got out of that post ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by A-non-a-mus
not true... you can NOT 'make' love, love is just there... though, I know what you mean to say 'sex is an end result of a show of passion and love you share for the other' ... In my opinion, that's what it should remain as...

---

Yeah, I didn't mean that sex makes love... I never meant that at all. I am glad you see what I mean though.

Edit:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kovu The Lion
Mkay you disagree, so you say now

that if you want to show your love to someone, you have sex with them Cause that is so what I got out of that post ;)

---

No no no. -_- That is not what I meant at all. You can show love lots of ways without sex.

Let me ask you this, what if someone stays together with another, even gets married, but the couple doesn't want kids? So you think they should never have sex? (If they want to have sex, I was never saying people have to have sex to show love) -_-

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sharifu
Yeah, I didn't mean that sex makes love... I never meant that at all. I am glad you see what I mean though.

---

yeah, I just was clearifying that in case any other may not have seen what you ment...

I always cringe everytime I hear sex refered to as 'making love'... it really goes to show the one saying it really has no idea what 'love' is if that's what they think makes it ...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sharifu

No no no. -_- That is not what I meant at all. You can show love lots of ways without sex.

Let me ask you this, what if someone stays together with another, even gets married, but the couple doesn't want kids? So you think they should never have sex? (If they want to have sex, I was never saying people have to have sex to show love) -_-

---

If you are a christian, No I don't think you should, for god made sex possible for one reason, to make a future generation, not to show love, or have pleasure, even though that brings it.

if not, oh well.. Do it lol, Though I have no problem if people do it, I don't classify it as right, I'd rather just go along with teasing one another.. as that's funner anyways ;)

Because gay people don't have protected sex? That's a new one on me!

You know, I think people make too much out of sex. At the end of the day, it's just sex. Hell, do it because you enjoy it and the other person consents. Just be careful. :secret:

|| Agrees.

||Disagrees.

"Do it because you enjoy it and the other person consents." sounds like sex wouldn't need to be based on love. In my opinion, (and as said before) sex is something special you should only share with the person you really love. Not try out various peeps to see "which one's best" or somethin. Variety's not akways the spice of life.

Thus I think gay marriage is wrong (though I have nothing against gays or lesbians, they can do whatever they want) because I can't imagine how there could actually be something like love without/before sex.
If it's just about having equal rights as straight couples, then I don't mind. Isn't there something which gives homosexual couples those right but without actually being married?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Neola
"Do it because you enjoy it and the other person consents." sounds like sex wouldn't need to be based on love. In my opinion, (and as said before) sex is something special you should only share with the person you really love. Not try out various peeps to see "which one's best" or somethin. Variety's not akways the spice of life.

---

Hmm... interesting. Sex is a primordial urge. You can't blame people for wanting it. I do agree on one thing, it is special; oh indeed...

Well, if it's a primordial urge, it surely is not an urge of the pleasure sex brings but of reproduction. Thus you shouldn't have sex without protection otherwise it would be senseless, right?

So, if you think sex is something special, why do you come up with this whole primordial urge-thing? Isn't that a little contradictory?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Neola
Well, if it's a primordial urge, it surely is not an urge of the pleasure sex brings but of reproduction. Thus you shouldn't have sex without protection otherwise it would be senseless, right?

So, if you think sex is something special, why do you come up with this whole primordial urge-thing? Isn't that a little contradictory?

---

You yourself will have to find out 'why' it is special. Reproduction is a pleasure to live on forever. Use protection if need be, sterile or not; there are diseases out there, though protection isn't a guarantee.

Marriages...why not? men/woman marriages? why not? lesbian marriages? Why not? Gay marriages? Why not? I don't think it makes you that different or special if you are in any of these so called "groups", it's just which characteristics you prefer in your partner...I loooove men, I'm obsessed with men, but hey, If I just happened to like a female better and wanted to spend the rest of my life with her...again...why not?

As to sex, I believe we had that debate already going on in some other thread and I seriously don't get it why some can't understand that sex is many times "just sex" like Neph said...even if you love someone, you don't always have the oh so movie-like, so sensitive-all-over-in-love sex ;)

I agree with it, because... well, listen to this.

:p

WARNING: Contains Adult language

You should warn them, Monai...adult language, remember :bleen:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zaya
As to sex, I believe we had that debate already going on in some other thread and I seriously don't get it why some can't understand that sex is many times "just sex" like Neph said...even if you love someone, you don't always have the oh so movie-like, so sensitive-all-over-in-love sex ;)

---

'sex' is not 'just sex' it's what comes at the end ... the end result, last in line... it is something speacial, that two share when they wish to start a family... and a strong show of passion adn love one feels to the other.

also movie-like is completely fake... that's one of the main things that promote the 'wrong' way to being in love with someone, and does in fact not come from love or even show it... movies are one of the main reasons 'sex' is thought so little of.

You say it's that, someone says it's that.

You can't really change an opinion of someone, and you can't really argue about an opinion (meaning, that if this person believes in his/her opinion).

And if you do, we can still be going at it till next Christmas.

And how did we end up with talking about sex anyways.
Thought this thread was ment for something else.

Yeah, somehow we always end up doing this, hehe. Someone please start a thread about sex? :P
Though I have to agree with A-non-a-mus (geez, find yourself a nickname!)
Well, back on topic I guess :hehe:

Actually, they were having protected sex 6,000 years ago. So it's not as unnatural as you think. Either way, I still don't support gay marriage. Say what you want...even if I was Athiest or Agnostic, I would/will not support it EVER.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Neola

Though I have to agree with A-non-a-mus (geez, find yourself a nickname!)

---

you can call me 'Anon' or 'Nonners' you know :p

What about Mussy or Nonnie? :P

yes, those too whichever your prefer ;) :p

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ?nathalie?
And how did we end up with talking about sex anyways.
Thought this thread was ment for something else.

---

Actually, it ties into sex because according to some passages of the Bible, homosexual acts are considered sexually immoral.

Also, a question for those who oppose gay marriages... when the bills/propositions/etc. come for making gay marriages legal, do you vote against it, or not vote on them at all?

against, for if the bill is passed, what are they going to do? force themselves on the church to marry them... ... basically it'll be a bill on trying to change the christian faith... if it is passed, the church I go to, and any good christian church will still refuse to marry them... against the law or not, these laws cannot change christianity...

I think love is all that counts. And sex is sex even if the people doing it happen to be both males or females.

And what comes to bible, it always says things that are.. weird. Because gayness has been among people for quite a while now.. it cannot be considered as unnatural. After all, if you believe in god, you think god created everything, including gays. So basically, gays are just as "normal" as everybody else..

The longer a sin has been around doesn't make a sin any less of one... murder has been around for a long time too, is that natural? should we accept murder?

God created everything, but he gave 'choice' too, we all get to choose what we want, we all have our own opinions, and can choose to do evil or good, also the choice of view as how we look upon something.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by A-non-a-mus
against, for if the bill is passed, what are they going to do? force themselves on the church to marry them... ... basically it'll be a bill on trying to change the christian faith... if it is passed, the church I go to, and any good christian church will still refuse to marry them... against the law or not, these laws cannot change christianity...

---

Not necessarily. Apparently, in Canada, churches choose whether they want to host gay marriages or not. So it's still a choice for the church to make.

yes, true, though that would mean that only few churches would be open for them... and those churches in turn would be hypocritical as they contradict their own faith by allowing a gay marriage to take place within...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by A-non-a-mus
yes, true, though that would mean that only few churches would be open for them... and those churches in turn would be hypocritical as they contradict their own faith by allowing a gay marriage to take place within...

---

There are plenty of hypocritical churches, though. Many of them already do things that're against the Bible, so having gay marriage wouldn't be the first thing that makes a church hypocritical. Also, if you think a church is being hypocritical, why does it matter to you? If you don't attend it, why is it important? There are far too many denominations of Christianity to "unite as one", so unity shouldn't be a big issue.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by A-non-a-mus
against, for if the bill is passed, what are they going to do? force themselves on the church to marry them... ... basically it'll be a bill on trying to change the christian faith... if it is passed, the church I go to, and any good christian church will still refuse to marry them... against the law or not, these laws cannot change christianity...

---

I do believe you can get married outside of the church. If the bill is directed at forcing the Church to change it's ways when it comes to marriage, not only is it wrong but unconstitutional as well.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Xinithian
There are plenty of hypocritical churches, though. Many of them already do things that're against the Bible, so having gay marriage wouldn't be the first thing that makes a church hypocritical. Also, if you think a church is being hypocritical, why does it matter to you? If you don't attend it, why is it important? There are far too many denominations of Christianity to "unite as one", so unity shouldn't be a big issue.

---

yes, I know... I've been to some hypocritical churches... and have seen others... it matters to me because they are churches... they represent (or should) the christian faith... however they don't, and as more and more fall into that hypocrisy, the harder it is for those of us whom are christians... however, in the end they'll have to answer for their own sins, as will we all.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lion_roog
I do believe you can get married outside of the church. If the bill is directed at forcing the Church to change it's ways when it comes to marriage, not only is it wrong but unconstitutional as well.

---

yes, I know... but then again, the constitution is easily warped and bent over time. Also, who would perform the marriage anyways?... words from a false preacher mean nothing... they might as well perform it themselves

Quote:

---

Originally posted by A-non-a-mus

yes, I know... but then again, the constitution is easily warped and bent over time. Also, who would perform the marriage anyways?... words from a false preacher mean nothing... they might as well perform it themselves

---

Haha...in some states they can perform it themselves..Here is what I found on who can perform marriage ceremonies...

"Usually the state laws provide any recognized member of the clergy (such as a Priest, Minister, Rabbi, Imam, Cantor, Ethical Culture Leader, etc.), or a judge, a court clerk, and justices of the peace have authority to perform a marriage. However in some states even the clergy must be first certified or licensed.

Some states have laws that permit other persons to apply for authority to perform marriage ceremonies. For example, California law permits anyone to apply for permission to become a Deputy Commissioner of Marriages -- the grant of authority is valid for one day -- and thus officiate at the wedding of family or friends on that one day."

http://family-law.freeadvice.com/per...geceremony.htm

so much for traditions eh?
hm... I wonder why they would need a law then... just get their friends together, perform a marrage then go home without care weither or not the gevernment thinks they are or arn't... (they don't even need a anyone with any sort of marriage license ...) ... I mean they can just go up to some guy/girl in the street and say alright you, marry these two together... ... hm... seems to me like a marriage means absolutly nothing to those whom would go that way... might as well not waste time and energy on it... besides, it won't last anyways...

for everyone's sakes, being gay is no sin, two gay people getting married is NO sin! Call me the worst Christian around here! LOVE is NO sin, so being gay and being in love is NO sin either! With all this, you're actually saying, that if your religion would tell it is wrong to love people of the opposite sex, you'll just become gay...If you look at it from a more open perspective, we worship and praise God and nobody from this world, for we are all siners in our own ways, besides isn't our religion teaching to love and respect everyone, even the oh so great siners?

P.S.: and yes, do open a sex page, cause I'd really like to know, what enlightment did others get when having it...oh, no, when making looove

again, sorry, for being cinical and a bit rude, but I live in 2006 and am trying to be open-minded and tolerant towards everyone :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by A-non-a-mus
so much for traditions eh?
hm... I wonder why they would need a law then... just get their friends together, perform a marrage then go home without care weither or not the gevernment thinks they are or arn't... (they don't even need a anyone with any sort of marriage license ...) ... I mean they can just go up to some guy/girl in the street and say alright you, marry these two together... ... hm... seems to me like a marriage means absolutly nothing to those whom would go that way... might as well not waste time and energy on it... besides, it won't last anyways...

---

I think you have to be certified or licensed to perform any marriage ceremony. Marriage is very similar to a legal contract/document (it pretty much is one) because then you are bound to your wife/husband legally in some ways...usually financial it seems.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Zaya
for everyone's sakes, being gay is no sin, two gay people getting married is NO sin! Call me the worst Christian around here! LOVE is NO sin, so being gay and being in love is NO sin either! With all this, you're actually saying, that if your religion would tell it is wrong to love people of the opposite sex, you'll just become gay...If you look at it from a more open perspective, we worship and praise God and nobody from this world, for we are all siners in our own ways, besides isn't our religion teaching to love and respect everyone, even the oh so great siners?

---

love is no sin, and yes, 'love your neighbor as yourself' ... (but you wouldn't have a romantic relationship with yourself now would you?)
Being gay is sexually immoral... and it is said in th bible multiple times...you are a christian right? ... I'm not going to be calling you a bad one or anything, however, it is stated in the bible, 'acceptence of a sin is just as bad as commiting it' ...
Love is no sin, then again, 'gay' and 'love' are not the same context as how you are saying... God is love, God is also without sin, homosexuality/sexual immorality is a sin, therefore cannot be of God or from God, and henceforth is not love.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by A-non-a-mus
hm... I wonder why they would need a law then... just get their friends together, perform a marrage then go home without care weither or not the gevernment thinks they are or arn't... (they don't even need a anyone with any sort of marriage license ...) ... I mean they can just go up to some guy/girl in the street and say alright you, marry these two together... ... hm... seems to me like a marriage means absolutly nothing to those whom would go that way... might as well not waste time and energy on it... besides, it won't last anyways...

---

Well, there are government and legal benefits to married couples, such as community property. If a marriage is not legally declared, and the marriage doesn't turn out, they can't file for divorce because they haven't been married in the first place, so there's no protection for property ownership. There are also other legal benefits with marriage.