PDA

View Full Version : Gay Marriages...are they right? Or not?



dinesh
02-27-2004, 04:38 PM
Gavin Newsom, the Mayor of San Fransisco has legalized gay marriages and is issuing licenses to gay couples. President Bush is against this and is trying to pass a bill through Congress to outlaw this.

What is your opinion about this? Is "who a person chooses to partner" his/her own business, or should the society put rules over prospective unions? Do you think it is right? Or do you think it is immoral and against the rule of life?

PS : I have been waiting for a long time for this particular subject to appear in Geetham. Nobody, it seems, were willing to bring it up. So, here goes........

sabeshan
02-27-2004, 04:42 PM
From a personal point of view, I feel that homosexuality SUCKS!!! I cannot imagine how two people of the same sex can ever make out... It is very reprehensible... the only thing that separates us from animals is our ability to distinguish right and wrong... if in the name of experimentation, we stoop down lower than animals, we have no right to be called humans... I am not saying this from the viewpoint of morality... I am sorry if my statements sound rude to pro-gay members but as I said its my personal opinion...

sabeshan
02-27-2004, 04:48 PM
From a legal point of view, the decision to grant legal status to gay 'marriages' is stupid. The main reason for a government to define marriage is to identify eligibility of persons in redressing grievances, claims for pension, alimony etc etc. All such benefits are offered only to a heterosexual marriage (it is a pity that I have to prefix it!) as there is most likely an addition to the population from the result of the marriage, meaning that the couple can add value to the nation. But nothing comes out of a gay 'marriage' save sexual satisfaction for the partners and is hence unproductive from the nation's point of view. If gay marriages are legalized all over the US, the day will not be far off when the birth rate will drop down to abysmal levels and the population will be nothing but a group of men cohabiting with other men and women with women. Refusing to legalize gay marriages can deter such selfish and sex-oriented 'marriages' from happening and will prevent the possibility of loss of valuable workforce as well as income in the next generation.

Honeyarjun
02-27-2004, 04:58 PM
I am not against gay marriages...First of all I dont even believe in the concept behind hetrosexual marriages ..so my opinion doesnt matter here..

but I have an intriguing question.. I seriously dont understand how people of same sex get attracted to each other (physically).. Even if I hear people telling me its all in their hormones, I just couldnt get this concept at all.. I really want to have a one to one conversation with a gay person to get to understand their feelings.. or anyone from geetham can u pls explain this scientifically to this ignorant person??

sagi
02-27-2004, 05:03 PM
IT IS AGAINST THE NATURE....SO YUKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK KKK :p:

san2003
02-27-2004, 05:35 PM
well.. gay marriages is not wrong.. but probably it won't be good to be legal in asian countries.. it will be very weird :)
ive never seen any gay marriage b4.. but ive seen many gays :) hahahaa.... two guys kissing and stuff like that :) the reason they r attracted is becoz of some genes that might be different.. or somethin like that(those who learnt science do come and explain)
if sex change operation has become legal.. why not gay marriages... :)
ok... now about girls (can i talk bout it here as well?) ..... plz tell if i can.. coz i dun wanna be offensive or anythin here, ok geethamites? :)

dinesh
02-27-2004, 05:44 PM
they r attracted is becoz of some genes that might be different

I don't believe in that. No such study has been produced to date.



ok... now about girls (can i talk bout it here as well?) ..... plz tell if i can.. coz i dun wanna be offensive or anythin here, ok geethamites?

Of course you can. The term Gay is used in the wider sense, covering both sexes.

san2003
02-27-2004, 05:55 PM
don't believe in that. No such study has been produced to date.
well.. probably no study bout that ( i doubt it though.. coz there its very common in the western cultures like US, UK and OZ) .... but in reality there r gays rite?.... ive seen a girl (a guy who did operation) ... u won't believe.. she is so beautiful and sexy... perfect girl .... i dun really know why.. but i know it has to do with genes.. ive studied bout it somewhere.. but forgot .... well... elton john the famous singer is gay.. so wat more to say?

about girls who r lesbians.. well.. this is also quite common.. normally u can find them in girls school (where i saw many)... this is mayb coz they either have been brought up that way.. very boyish or its about the genes thing too.. :)

appu
02-27-2004, 06:07 PM
see...gay sex is not wrong....law should be in such a way to protect the people from any harm...if the two persons indulging in gay sex r interested in doing so, then what is wrong in legalizing it.... they wont be doing anything wrong to the society....so it is not wrong to make a law legalizing gay sex... u dont beleave i have seem some people in india too....

vasan
02-27-2004, 06:07 PM
Wow.. The veritable pandora's box. I have been too curiously following the debate - waged from Massachussetts to California. One thing is clear though: The 'liberal' media and 'conservative' media have been very vocal about it. Nothing new has been spoken out for or against in the last decade or so, though peoples perceptions might have been changed.

Is it 'in' their nature? Is it against Nature? Is it gross or is it our own bias? I am not sure these things can be ever decided.

I believe in a marriage. Between a man and a woman. That is my personal belief. Marriage not in the sense of ceremony but more in the sense of two people speaking about it and agreeing to it. Its not a santimonious tool, but a way you express your committment to a person and your promise to be monogamus. But these are my personal beliefs and what I would practice. If some else does not agree with it, so be it. They have all the freedom - and I think the law should respect that as well.3

What law defines as a marriage is really the cultural issue. The purposes of legalization is what Sabeshan quoted.


The main reason for a government to define marriage is to identify eligibility of persons in redressing grievances, claims for pension, alimony etc etc.

But his claim that it is given as a previlege because a heterosexual union adds value to the nation is not acceptable. It is not a previlege, its a right. A guy should have the freedom and the law must respect it. So long as its a free country. No country can be a moral police to free citizens. Why should taxes and a million other things had to be different just because gay people can't reproduce? Would you then amend and make it legal if they have babies outside of their union? Also would you throw away a heteromarriage because the couple can't have babies? Adding value to the nation sounds so much like the theory proposed by Nazis. When they 'thought' old people, sick people, disabled, homosexuals, Jews as 'not adding' value to their pure aryan blood they killed them. By making LEGAL issues for such things I think the concept of rights and individuals choice is blurred.

What is even sillier.. nearly in every other aspects Gay people are recognized in most states. Even in states where laws exist, no one seems to be strictly enforcing them. (Georgia and South Carolina for example). Only on one simple issue of 'marriage' certification people seem to be troubled. Why calling cohabitation , this and that, when you could just say marriage and get on with life? Just by saying NO to marriage license, are we kidding ourselves that we are limiting every ones social and sexual behaviour? I think not.

What you and me believe should not be imposed on everyone. Much as what others believe should not be imposed on me. In this sense, I think Gay marriages should be allowed. For all practical purposes its there anyways. பூனை கண்ணை மூடிக்கொன் டால் பூமி இருண்டிடும ா என்ன?

anainar
02-27-2004, 06:24 PM
Guys,

I watched the topic very late. But clear line of thoughts have been expressed by Vasan. No govt or law can do moral policing. They are better of sticking their neck out to make their country safe for their citizens. So is this value addition business. Gays do work and they pay their taxes. How is that they dont add value?

Sex is just one part of attraction. If sex alone is the only criteria, then how about marriages which dont have sex at all? Or when the hormones die down? Two people living together is driven more by their personalities. Choosing who they want to be with is entirely their choice. Some of us look for opposite sex and some dont. How different is that from the basic requirement of companionship? Legally the govt should not come in the way. They should acknowledge gay marriages. Whether it is acceptable to society, "Yukkk" stuff are to be left for the individuals and societies.

I am just reminded of the movie Philadelphia. It tackles a similar kind of problem and amazingly taken. Tom Hanks and Denzel shine in their roles to bring about "What is law" and what it it should do leaving the morality aside.

Cheers.

sri_gan
02-27-2004, 07:03 PM
This is one Extreme of Western Culture in terms of "Independence" in the name of "LOVE".

Arranged Marriage and Love marriage Topic le kattu kathu kuthenen ethanaiyo peru comment adichanga.

Fact is always a Fact. Kasakka than seiyum enna pannurathu.

sabeshan
02-27-2004, 07:10 PM
But his claim that it is given as a previlege because a heterosexual union adds value to the nation is not acceptable. It is not a previlege, its a right. A guy should have the freedom and the law must respect it. So long as its a free country. No country can be a moral police to free citizens. Why should taxes and a million other things had to be different just because gay people can't reproduce?

Vasan, you got me completely wrong or I was too unclear in my statements... but let me clarify here again... by recognition of value I do not mean that people should be discriminated against only because they do not add value to the nation. I never said that governments should discourage homosexuality by not legalizing gay marriages. My policy is that people can be have sex with those from their own sex or with animals or even with inanimate objects... No one would want to prevent that or is even interested in preventing that. All we are looking at is offering benefits to people on the basis of marriage who most certainly do not qualify for it. It is a government's function to identify far-reaching effects of any decision. If gay marriages were to be legalized it would result in more and more people applying for marriage benefits even though they would not in the first place be eligible. Divorce in a gay marriage is not the same as in heterosexual marriage. In a hetero marriage, there are permanent markers of marriage left in the form of children and they are a contentious issue for people who wish to separate. But in the case of gay marriages, divorce is primarily opting out and nothing more. So the state cannot sponsor any gay who would claim social security in the name of a failed marriage as the government does not get back anything in the future from that marriage.. true that childless couples exist but imagine a situation where there are 50% of gay marriages and the population does not grow for several generations at all. The country will slowly die out that way. I know I sound far too imaginative but this is quite possible in a country like USA. So my opinion still is that gay marriages are primarily outcomes of sexual desires alone and not with any noble societal intention. When you expect the economic benefits of living in a society you are expected to contribute something back to the society in any form. Gay marriages are only a burden on society. Note my words I did not say homosexuality is a burden but from other angles it may be seen so but for only now, gay marriages are the burden on society.

arunsharavan
02-27-2004, 10:00 PM
Guys, the thing is we (the normal people) dont know the feeling of Homos...It obviously looks disgusting and awfull while hearing these things. However, there r some ppl out there who feel this strange thing towards the same sex ppl. I assume, if we talk about freedom(that too in America!!!), then they also have equal choice of choosing their spouses from either sex. I am sure It is not the nature' way...however, it is certainly not AGAINST nature.

Arun

dinesh
02-27-2004, 10:21 PM
It was interesting reading all the comments. My stance in this is somewhere in the middle. As people who have read my posts for some time would know, I believe in individual freedom in a society should be guaranteed. In that viewpoint, any person in a society can choose to do whatever they want as long as it does not affect anybody else in the society. And I don't see any adverse affect to the society either by Gay relationships or gay marriages. I don't agree with Sabeshan's doomsday scenarios about the country losing workforce etc. I don't think gay marriages would happen in such a large number to cause this. So, I feel that each person deserves the right to choose who they want to have a relationship with and who they want to marry.

But, eventhough I agree with a person to choose such a relationship, that does not mean I agree with the person's choice. I will defend the person's right to do so, because he is guaranteed that in a democratic society, but I will not accept his choice as right. The main reason behind this is, I don't think same sex activities are also natural as some pro-gay activists might claim. I see this as an extended form of perversion, where people who cannot be satisfied with some amount of physical pleasure have to do something against the nature to satisfy it. I feel homosexuality certainly falls within this definition. There is no way a person could rationally ratify such an un-natural behaviour.

This is a behaviour, we should note, publicised in late 70's and 80's by pop stars and 'icons', and then became integrated with the mainstream society. True, there were people before then who indulged in such activities, some people inform me that such behaviour was visible in ancient Roman societies, but that goes on to re-enforce my view. You will get your own share of perverts in every society in every timeframe. We cannot possibly accept every such person as having a natural behaviour, can we? So, my point is, I fail to see any rational reasoning behind this particular behaviour, apart from the obvious "extended perversion".

Also, my arguments about individual freedom, will work well in a Western society, where a society is a group of individuals, and the society in general has less say in the behaviour of a particular individual, but people of this kind will find it extremely difficult to justify themselves in family-oriented eastern societies. The main reason will be they themselves will not be able to contribute to such a society in the manner of a family. Also, since the society has more of a say about an individual's behaviour, and because an individual's action will affect the society more than it does in the West, homosexual behaviour will not work well in Eastern societies.

anainar
02-27-2004, 10:42 PM
Dinesh,

Govts does not decide on what is natural and what is against nature. Marriages require a legal stamp only when it comes to interaction with the govt, either for tax, property or monetary matters. It does not control the life of an individual. And it cannot decide on what is best or what is not for the society. Govt are nececssary evil to maintain safety and security and plan for progress of the individuals. It has no right to tell me what is good or what is bad. With this logic, it is not govt's business to decide whether gays can be married or not legally. That is my point.

I am in no way an advocate of homosexuality but I also dont look at that as as reason to revulse at an individual. Sex is an individual's preference. How he does it, with whom he does is not my business or the Govts or anybody's. This is my view but I am branded as a useless guy by everybody in my family.

Governments are better off if they stay away from these moral policing. In that angle, legalisation of gay marriages should be accepted.

Cheers.

Bluelotus
02-27-2004, 10:51 PM
This is a behaviour, we should note, publicised in late 70's and 80's by pop stars and 'icons', and then became integrated with the mainstream society. True, there were people before then who indulged in such activities, some people inform me that such behaviour was visible in ancient Roman societies

Homosexuality has existed for a very long time, and from that time ppl have tried to suppress it one way or the other. I belive that there is passage which even hints at homosexual mores and practices.....either the Koran or the Bible...not quite sure anymore which one..(refering to how sodomie is a bad thing which should be banned, etc..)

The fact remains that it does exist and shall probably carry on existing whatever law or ammendment to the American constitution is passed.
I do not think I have the right pass any judgement on whether it is right or wrong.
However I would support Gay marriages, on the simple basis that anything which commits ppl to a long term monogamous relationship will only benefit society in the long term.

A marriage license may just be a piece of paper.....bu it is an extremely important piece of paper which joins 2 ppl in a long term monogamous relationship in the eyes of the Law and Society.

At a time when divorce rates r higher than marriage rates ....why not let those who wish to voluntarily wed, do so?



This is one Extreme of Western Culture in terms of "Independence" in the name of "LOVE".

Arranged Marriage and Love marriage Topic le kattu kathu kuthenen ethanaiyo peru comment adichanga.

Fact is always a Fact. Kasakka than seiyum enna pannurathu.

I'm sorry but I don't quite understand what ur saying?



reason will be they themselves will not be able to contribute to such a society in the manner of a family. Also, since the society has more of a say about an individual's behaviour, and because an individual's action will affect the society more than it does in the West, homosexual behaviour will not work well in Eastern societies.



I think "Eastern" society is in denial. I am positive that there is a huge "underground" gay population in the eastern countries such as India and Lanka. It's probably growing as I type. Not cos ppl get converted to homosexuality or anything...but simply because ppl "come out of the closet" with their deep dark secret. Wot I find terrible is that on the Idian Subcontinent there must be thousands of gays/lesbians married to heterosexual and lying to both themeselves and their spouses.
Homosexuals do contribute towards "family" life, many adpt or foster children giving them secure happy loving homes where they can grow up to lead fulfilling lives. And no, having homosexual parents will not make the child become one too.




Govts does not decide on what is natural and what is against nature. Marriages require a legal stamp only when it comes to interaction with the govt, either for tax, property or monetary matters. It does not control the life of an individual. And it cannot decide on what is best or what is not for the society. Govt are nececssary evil to maintain safety and security and plan for progress of the individuals. It has no right to tell me what is good or what is bad. With this logic, it is not govt's business to decide whether gays can be married or not legally. That is my point.
...
Governments are better off if they stay away from these moral policing. In that angle, legalisation of gay marriages should be accepted.


I totally agree with Anainar.

reks
02-27-2004, 11:07 PM
Thou i sincerely beleive that homosexual relations are against the rule of life and religion, i think "who one chooses to be his/her partner" is his/her own business... and as vasan says, not legalizing is not going to limit these behaviour...


but imagine a situation where there are 50% of gay marriages and the population does not grow for several generations at all.

in that case, mabbe we should think abt legalizing this in our country and in countries like china :wink:

dinesh
02-27-2004, 11:10 PM
anainar : If you read my post carefully, you'll understand I've said the same thing as you. I believe every individual should do according to his choice, as long as that choice does not affect the society adversely. However, that does not mean I accept every choice every individual makes. Some I might disagree with. But, that doesn't change my opinion about their right to make that choice. And I too believe that governments cannot interfere with an individuals choices.
I support gay marriages and relationships on the basis they are an individual's choice, and the such an individual has a right to make such a choice.



The fact remains that it does exist and shall probably carry on existing whatever law or ammendment to the American constitution is passed.

Exactly. As I said before, there will certainly be a group of people in every society in every timeframe who will be doing something different. But, that does not mean I have to accept such behaviour as normal.

I do not think I have the right pass any judgement on whether it is right or wrong.

I have certain beliefs. If a gay person believes what he doing is right, then why cannot I believe what he is doing is wrong? Isn't the "moral policing" being applied here inversely? I respect such a person's choice. Why cannot people respect my choice when I make it? Isn't it a bit hypocritical?

However I would support Gay marriages, on the simple basis that anything which commits ppl to a long term monogamous relationship will only benefit society in the long term.

A marriage license may just be a piece of paper.....bu it is an extremely important piece of paper which joins 2 ppl in a long term monogamous relationship in the eyes of the Law and Society.

At a time when divorce rates r higher than marriage rates ....why not let those who wish to voluntarily wed, do so?

That is a weird argument. What will happen if, say, 90% of a country decides on gay marriages, just because it keeps the divorce rate under control? Unless the IVF clinics work overtime, it'll be very hard to sustain such a society in the long term!



I think "Eastern" society is in denial. I am positive that there is a huge "underground" gay population in the eastern countries such as India and Lanka. It's probably growing as I type. Not cos ppl get converted to homosexuality or anything...but simply because ppl "come out of the closet" with their deep dark secret. Wot I find terrible is that on the Idian Subcontinent there must be thousands of gays/lesbians married to heterosexual and lying to both themeselves and their spouses.
Homosexuals do contribute towards "family" life, many adpt or foster children giving them secure happy loving homes where they can grow up to lead fulfilling lives. And no, having homosexual parents will not make the child become one too.

I was not implying that there is no homosexuality in the subcontinent. I was merely saying a gay lifestyle will not be suited to such a society, because it is based on a family culture. Of course there are gay people in the subcontinent, who will find it very hard to lead a life, and I will not find fault with the society here, because it was the way the society was built up over the years.

How come I was totally misunderstood? :think:

dinesh
02-27-2004, 11:17 PM
Thou i sincerely beleive that homosexual relations are against the rule of life and religion

Religions are a set of rules devised by HUMANS over various periods in history. This is a fact. With minimal amount of scientific knowledge and the knowledge about the history of mankind this can be easily proven. So if a person's behaviour is not according to a set of rules written by another bunch of people, that does not mean the behaviour is wrong. Religion is a convenient shield where some anti-gay camapaigners hide behind, when they run out of fuel.

Otherwise, I agree with you reks, that it's an individuals choice etc.

RaasuKutty
02-28-2004, 12:26 AM
if u ppl understand the reason behind these, probably it wud make some more sense to this discussion... I read an article somewhere some time ago...

Before we start any discussion abt sex (m or F), the way we define boy'ish and girl'ish is important... In the process of an human embryo breaking out as a child.. there are lots that happen.. one of them is cornering to a sex.... there are some characteristics which has been DEFINED by science for a boy and for a girl... Normally the embryo, gets the characteristics of these by that X and Y chromosomes.. .. bla bla bla....

For all children there are some boyish & girlish features (100% male or female is chanceless)... 90% of boyish nature & physically a boy or 90% females and is physically a girl(% though may vary)..... we can neglect the 50:50 case here.. what I am talking is all about 90:10 ratios... 90% characteristics of one sex and 10% of another sex...

Hair growth in face is a feature of a male.. but it happens to lot of females... tonnes of similar examples can be quoted.... of all these characteristics sex attraction is also one...

so there is a chance for a normal healthy man with masculine features except that sex attraction is more of femanine..... he has more womenish sexual attractions similarly reverse for women....

It is b'coz of these ppl the concept of same sex attraction comes into pic.. these ppl cannot n joi relations with opposite sex...(though their partner may enjoi)... if u think in these ppl terms, even thou they behave bisexually and are hetrosexual..... they feel as if they are partnering same sex... (THIS IS MY POINT)

when 2 ppl of a similar nature come close... its what we see is gay/******* marriage...

Its been proved that males compared to females have more chances for getting into this kind of a probelm and hence we see more gays than lesbians....

Right or wrong??????? If u think well with the point i mentioned.. if they have a hetrosexual... actually they feel its hmosexual... when they act homosexually they feel they r hetrosexual...

(sorry guys... typed little hastily...bare with this.. )

dinesh
02-28-2004, 12:38 AM
I don't believe in this. Some gay men would even be offended if you mention to them that they are gay because they are more feminine than an average male. This perception is very wrong, because gay men does not equate to men who behave like women. Some men can be as masculine as they could be and still be gay.

A perfect example comes from the movie Philadelpia, where Denzel Washington is the attorney for a gay man, and is congratualted by another man for taking on such a case which was refused by many others. Eventually this other man sort of tries to chat up Denzel. Denzel asks "Who do you think I am? Do I look gay to you?". The other man answers "Do I look gay to you?". That is the point. This guy was perfectly normal. I guess the message here was, you don't have to look gay to be gay.

I think this is entirely a psychological thing. Some people might get such physical characteristics, or even try to modify their physical appearance, but at the end of the it's what their brain thinks that matters.

RaasuKutty
02-28-2004, 12:54 AM
Some gay men would even be offended if you mention to them that they are gay because they are more feminine than an average male


Not some gay men, every male in the worls would br offended if u tell him that he has femanine features... Also I never mentioned they have less masculine features than other males... a very little opp sex feature that is there in all others... in this person is sexual attraction... think in that way..



I guess the message here was, you don't have to look gay to be gay


I am telling the same thing.... He will be a male with all masculine features... but his sexual attraction is not of a male...

I guess u havent got what I wanted to tell....

sri_gan
02-28-2004, 01:00 AM
Whatever it is, Marriage is a bond to Live Legally through society. When this homosexual thing whether its men to men or women to women kills the natural reproduction process and its the extreme to go against how nature is.

You can argue science is developed to get a baby from a test tube, but the fact is Its just not worth for the inventions science had made and to be made.

I personally feel, these Homosexual things might be created because of deep depression :think:, I think its just a possibility.

Ella Olunga Arranged Marriage Follow pannunga ellam seri aidum, anna oru payalum keka porathu illai. Ellam fashion mari than irrukkum deep down it will not.

Sappadu eppadi thondai varaikkum rusiyo athu mari than udampule thembu irruka varaikkum aduve, odampu unna puduchu attum pothu puriyum.

Shiva Shiva, Ithukku discussion vera.

Whoever speculates about society get reminded, you are living safe because of the term "SOCIETY" illaina appudi.

dinesh
02-28-2004, 01:08 AM
Raasukutty, Yeah....I get it now.....your previous post wasn't quite clear....... :b:



Homosexuality has existed for a very long time, and from that time ppl have tried to suppress it one way or the other. I belive that there is passage which even hints at homosexual mores and practices

I just saw this. Just because something existed in the past, does that mean it is alright? Let me draw a parallel. There have been several instances of child molesters over various periods of history. And people all along have opposed it. Now if I come up and say, "some Roman guy did it. So it should be fine" will you accept that? Or will you say "No, such people have a serious problem".
So just because something has existed for a very long time, it doesn't make it right. As I said earlier there will always be people in each and every society with "crooked" tastes. Can we accpet all of them as fine?

Bluelotus
02-28-2004, 09:29 AM
Abuse of any kind is Wrong. Peadophilism is the worst of the lot. I was not using history as my excuse. Homosexuality, as long as it does not hurt or abuse anyone is none of my business. As long as it is between concenting adults, I do not feel that I have any rights to go up to them and preach to them abt their morality.

Perhaps I have been brought up in such a way that if I am not tolerant towards all different mores and values, then I feel as if I have infringed severely on their human rights.

shidinesh:


Isn't the "moral policing" being applied here inversely? I respect such a person's choice. Why cannot people respect my choice when I make it? Isn't it a bit hypocritical?

yup ..it is ...life can be a complete bovine. See right now being homophobic to any degree is very non-PC.
no, ur right we should be able to express our own opinion without being shouted at and verbally abused.............but the thing is while Homosexuals believe that what they r doing is normal ....so do Heterosexuals ......and Gay ppl don't come up to Heteros and tell them that what they are practisingg is disgusting do they?
What I am trying to say, I suppose, is that both groups believe that their sexual practice is the correct one, so why not leave it there? Why not let whomever do whatever they want to do .....AS long as it hurts none in the process? Please note, I am not advocating abuse or related behaviours here.
(anyway...I said that I don't feel that I have the right to pass any judgement...I never mentioned anybody else in the equation)

sri_gan:

Whatever it is, Marriage is a bond to Live Legally through society. When this homosexual thing whether its men to men or women to women kills the natural reproduction process and its the extreme to go against how nature is.
...
Ella Olunga Arranged Marriage Follow pannunga ellam seri aidum, anna oru payalum keka porathu illai. Ellam fashion mari than irrukkum deep down it will not.

(U said it urself ...marriage is the legalisation and thus acceptance by society of a long term monogamous relationship between 2 concenting adults. )

A thing! can't belive u used such a term to describe another person!
Oh yeah ...u think that arranged marriages is the correct path.....ok...how abt this ....that's the way i'm gonna get hitched to another pour soul too....but let me tell u .....I will be extremely pissed off if that "poor" soul turn out to be a "closet gay"! I would dearly love to see ur face if that happened to u. So stop being in denial. Accepting that homosexuality exists is a very good thing for us heterosexuals. At least we won't end up marrying a person with a different sexual orrientation than us......and it does happen ...not just in "Friends" in real life too.

Just because a few ppl in this world feel that they are gay is not suddenly gonna halt the reproduction of the species.....I mean serioulsy do u really belive that legalising gay marriages will suddenly increase the number of gay ppl....it isn't a contagious disease u know?
Perhaps what it could do is slow down the rise of HIV + patients....That 's my main reason to encourage legal long term monogamous relationships. It's most likely to be severely flawed.

(on a much lighter note if anyone wants to find out how female or male they r regardless of their gender here's a funny quiz: http://www.thespark.com/gendertest )

dinesh
02-28-2004, 10:34 AM
I was not using history as my excuse

You were exactly doing that. Well, that's what I felt anyway. So, your justification because it has a history does not hold water.

As long as it is between concenting adults, I do not feel that I have any rights to go up to them and preach to them abt their morality.

Where was I preaching morality? Can't I have some beliefs? Can't I make some decisions on my own? I had already accepted that each and every individual has his/her right to do whatever they want etc. So, how come just believing on something suddenly makes me homophobic anarchist?



.............but the thing is while Homosexuals believe that what they r doing is normal ....so do Heterosexuals ......and Gay ppl don't come up to Heteros and tell them that what they are practisingg is disgusting do they?

But am I going and telling some gay person what he is doing is wrong. I don't agree with it, as a gay person might not agree that heterosexuality is his thing. What's wrong in that? This PC thing has been now taken to ludicrous extremes. Yes, we have to respect others' choices (that's exactly what I'm doing). But how can you pass laws that we have to accept certain things certain people do? I enjoy the principles of democracy, and I think freedom of speech should be guaranteed to everybody. But, nowadays, in the name of PC "moral policing" is applied the other way around to stifle such voices.

What I am trying to say, I suppose, is that both groups believe that their sexual practice is the correct one, so why not leave it there? Why not let whomever do whatever they want to do .....AS long as it hurts none in the process? Please note, I am not advocating abuse or related behaviours here.

I am letting anybody do anything as long as it does not affect others. They are just practising their democratic right. This is the umpteenth time I'm saying it. However, that does not mean I have to agree with whatever they do. My disagreement does not arise from the social consequences of homosexuality. Infact I believe there are no such consequences, unless homosexuality will become the practice of majority, and then we might need a tad more IVF clinincs than what we have now.
Instead, my disagreement comes from the fact that the practice itself stems from lack of sexual satisfaction. Which, I believe, is not a very good reason, to support the practice. Hence, my arguments that such practices might lead to more cruel and violent practices, which might not be very legal. There is a misconception in the western societies that sex is something very essential and so on. I believe this is the root cause of most homosexual cases. What I feel is such a practice is not very essential, and there can be no argument to justify that.

I hope I have made myself clear here, because this is the third time I'm writing it. I'm not preaching anything against anybody. Instead, I have some beliefs which are based on rational thought. Just because the so-called "free-thinking and modern society" does not agree with me, I cannot change my beliefs. My beliefs are for me. They are not for anybody else. A society which forces a set of beliefs into somebody's heads, just for the sake of PC, would have lost it democratic soul. My beliefs are there to be changed, if I encounter a more convincing argument. But so far I have seen none. "What a person does is his own business" is not good enough a reason. I accept the above statement. That's why I have said I agree with gay relationships/marriages, because they are just practising their democratic right of making a choice. But, that is not enough reason to convince me what they are doing is right.



(U said it urself ...marriage is the legalisation and thus acceptance by society of a long term monogamous relationship between 2 concenting adults. )

A thing! can't belive u used such a term to describe another person!
Oh yeah ...u think that arranged marriages is the correct path.....ok...how abt this ....that's the way i'm gonna get hitched to another pour soul too....but let me tell u .....I will be extremely pissed off if that "poor" soul turn out to be a "closet gay"! I would dearly love to see ur face if that happened to u. So stop being in denial. Accepting that homosexuality exists is a very good thing for us heterosexuals. At least we won't end up marrying a person with a different sexual orrientation than us......and it does happen ...not just in "Friends" in real life too.

Just because a few ppl in this world feel that they are gay is not suddenly gonna halt the reproduction of the species.....I mean serioulsy do u really belive that legalising gay marriages will suddenly increase the number of gay ppl....it isn't a contagious disease u know?
Perhaps what it could do is slow down the rise of HIV + patients....That 's my main reason to encourage legal long term monogamous relationships. It's most likely to be severely flawed.

I believe these comments are NOT aimed at me, because I've never contradicted any of those before. Nor have I written the text inside the "quote box". Can you please address the person you are talking to, so that there will be less confusion......

dinesh
02-28-2004, 10:39 AM
Oh, BTW, have we met somewhere else, sometime back Bluelotus? Or are you just another Bluelotus from another middle of nowhere? ;)

Bluelotus
02-28-2004, 01:00 PM
:00: ..cor! can u have homophobic anarchists?

hmmm right yeah we have met....there is only one middle of nowhere :ahha:


shidinesh:

I am letting anybody do anything as long as it does not affect others. They are just practising their democratic right. This is the umpteenth time I'm saying it. However, that does not mean I have to agree with whatever they do
ok got ur message loud and clear.
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Voltaire ...I suppose u and Voltaire are on the same wavelength on this one

shidinesh:

Instead, my disagreement comes from the fact that the practice itself stems from lack of sexual satisfaction. Which, I believe, is not a very good reason, to support the practice. Hence, my arguments that such practices might lead to more cruel and violent practices, which might not be very legal.

I don't think that the whole thing just stems from sexual dis-satisfaction. Well I find it very hard to accept that the reason that gay ppl get together is simply because of carnal desires....well just carnal desires...I mean there has to be something more, right...just like for hetero couples.

Please feel free to believe wotever u wish to believe......
problems may only arise when living in a multicultural, in fact multi-everything society, u decide to be vociferous abt ur views.......
Perhaps political correctness has been taken to unnecessary extremes....however sometimes it is a necessary evil in a multi-everything society. If ppl r not tolerant of others then one cannot I feel be able to lead a harmonious life. However there times when u gotta say" sorry mate don't even think of doing that or i'll have u behind bars in no time at all". So there r limits to tolerance too. (tolerance, the way I use it probly differs from the Oxford and the Webster definitions)

I think I have lost the entire plot .... :?


So u feel that it is their right to get married....however u do not agree with the whole concept of homosexuality, and thus belive that gay marriages are wrong?
In that case ....tht's wot most ppl seem to think too...well u know from the middle of nowhere and it's surroundings


Sorry abt the quotes ....I wasn't just addressing u.....guess my forum etiquette sucks big time....shall from now on include the source of the quote too.

dinesh
02-28-2004, 11:52 PM
hmmm right yeah we have met....there is only one middle of nowhere

Glad to know that. :)



So u feel that it is their right to get married....however u do not agree with the whole concept of homosexuality, and thus belive that gay marriages are wrong?

Yes!



Sorry abt the quotes ....I wasn't just addressing u.....guess my forum etiquette sucks big time....shall from now on include the source of the quote too.

don't worry much about it. Just letting you know it's a bit confusing. :b:

gokulan42
02-29-2004, 12:02 AM
Gay ppl don't come up to Heteros and tell them that what they are practisingg is disgusting do they?
How can they as that is basis of their existence? You cannot say what ever you feel like.

Everybody has individual freedom and it its within the boubdaries nobody cares. If a gay couple do what they want within their boundaries, I dont care. However, I will be concerned to see that with my kid/sister/wife/mom/... a gay couple kissing in a public place. Just for the sake of individual freedom, even a 'normal' couple can not make love in a public place. Isnt it?

gokulan42
02-29-2004, 12:04 AM
Gavin Newsom, the Mayor of San Fransisco has legalized gay marriages and is issuing licenses to gay couples. President Bush is against this and is trying to pass a bill through Congress to outlaw this.
We should let Bush and Cheney debate and come up with a solution then. Fyi, VP's daughter is a gay.

vasan
02-29-2004, 12:36 AM
**** Gephardt's daughter is gay. I don't think **** Cheney's daughter is.. (i don't even know if he has a daughter..)

sri_gan
02-29-2004, 02:10 AM
**** Gephardt's daughter is gay. I don't think **** Cheney's daughter is.. (i don't even know if he has a daughter..)

When does women become Gays? :D.

gokulan42
02-29-2004, 03:03 AM
**** Gephardt's daughter is gay. I don't think **** Cheney's daughter is.. (i don't even know if he has a daughter..)

When does women become Gays? :D.
******* is more feminine. Gay is supposed to be for guys. But, now its used to identify both groups.

Regarding **** Cheney's daughter, I read a week back that she did something for gay rights. I will try to get the source.

Comenaughty
02-29-2004, 08:01 AM
now.... a view from a person who is in the middle.....

i recently happnd to visit the manhattan area....and yes...came to know abt the area "chelsea", the mecca for the gay couples..... be4 i left india, there was a rally in calcutta....around 50-75 gay couples came to light and showed their bonding..... and very recently 2000 odd couples were married in california....wats this got to say? only thing is that, gay marriages are becoming more and more common.... y not allow them to enjoy the freedom that a normal couple do? do we have any rights to restrict some tom, **** and harry to sleep together? its their personal wish rite? freedom shud be respected and its a persons' wish......so y not make it legal?

now....a funny negative side of gay marriages..... wat next in the line? marriage with animals (dogs etc)? isnt the human race deteriorating this way?

Bluelotus
02-29-2004, 09:45 AM
Gokulan:

How can they as that is basis of their existence? You cannot say what ever you feel like.

the basis of their existence?
I agree u cannot and should not imo go up to complete strangers and tell them what ur feelings are on their sexual practices...unless they r hurting another...or asking ur humble opinion.
Mind u I wouldn't even tell that to my friend...she might break my nose or worse not speak to me.

Gokulan:

a gay couple kissing in a public place. Just for the sake of individual freedom, even a 'normal' couple can not make love in a public place. Isnt it?

that's why we have rooms for...sheesh anything more than peck on the cheek should be done behind 4 walls and closed doors

Comenaughty:

do we have any rights to restrict some tom, **** and harry to sleep together? its their personal wish rite? freedom shud be respected and its a persons' wish......so y not make it legal?

No we don't have the right to restrict them...unless it affects the right of others...in this case it doesn't I believe. A question which should be addressed at the US president.

from news.com.au :
Man marries dog for luck - then dies
From correspondents in Kathmandu
February 5, 2004

A 75-year-old man in Nepal married a dog in a local custom to ensure good luck only to die three days later, a newspaper reported Wednesday.

With his son and other relatives by his side, Phulram Chaudhary tied the knot with a dog Saturday in Durgauli village in the southwestern Kailali district.

He was following a custom of his Tharu community which holds that an old man who regrows teeth must take a dog as a bride.

"He believed that this would help him avoid great misfortune later in life. However, he died a few days afterward," the state-run daily Gorkhapatra said.

Comenaughty
02-29-2004, 07:45 PM
No we don't have the right to restrict them...unless it affects the right of others...in this case it doesn't I believe. A question which should be addressed at the US president.


bluelotus,
well.... all i can tell is....US president isnt someone who;s taking part in the debate is not relatd to this debate....all thats happning here is some kinda debate between us..... lemme tell u one thing..... for conservative narrow minded ppl like us, its tough to digest gay marriages and even if bush or someone else passes a rule legalizing gay marriages, its not gonna be there in india in near future.....

well, there shud be a better reason than ur reason of "....they can be married...coz it doesnt intrude in to our freedom/rights....".....coz tomm. if mr.X in antarctica wants to marry and legalize his relationship with his pet bear, does this intrude in to ur rights? so..... with a similar reason of freedom, one can do millions of dirty stuff.....and not everything can be legalized....!!!!!!

Bluelotus
02-29-2004, 10:12 PM
yes I do know that all the reason I have given so far are terribly flawed....Can't think of a rational reason to convince the sceptics.
so my wishing to legalise homosexual marriages is based on the irrational.

and the animal thing...that's terribly sickening....that should be punished under animal protection laws.

gokulan42
02-29-2004, 10:18 PM
Why? if the animal & a human want to do that? What is the difference between 2 homos and this?

I am NOT for gay marriages. But, if you allow gay marriages, what stops the next step? and why not?

Bluelotus
02-29-2004, 10:36 PM
how do u know that animals want to get married to a human?
I know humans who don't wanna marry humans ...how could animals want such a commitment :?

gokulan42
02-29-2004, 10:47 PM
On the same note, how do we know that the anomal do not want to get married? If its partner claims so ;)

BTW, I dint mean marriage when I siad if they want 'that'. I meant an intercourse. What will you call the (I am sorry to say this) kutties?

Bluelotus
02-29-2004, 10:58 PM
such hybrid offsprings cannot possibly happen...right?
I mean first of all they have different haploid number of chromosomes and etc....can't happen ...unless some weird scientist gets hold of that idea...and decides to carry out experiments

How can u even think that animals would even want to do such things....me thinketh that only humans could even come up with such a corrupt idea......didn't this arise from lack of carnal satisfaction......like shidinesh mentioned for Gay ppl......

dinesh
02-29-2004, 11:37 PM
well, there shud be a better reason than ur reason of "....they can be married...coz it doesnt intrude in to our freedom/rights....".....coz tomm. if mr.X in antarctica wants to marry and legalize his relationship with his pet bear, does this intrude in to ur rights? so..... with a similar reason of freedom, one can do millions of dirty stuff.....and not everything can be legalized....!!!!!!

When Mr. X wants to marry an animal, I don't think a civilized society would accpt that, because we do normally accept that animals have certain rights, and this would fall under animal cruelty.

If anybody can prove that by a gay relationship, a society is affected adversely, then we can have a sound proof against gay relationships. I am unable to find any myself, hence am forced to support individual decisions, in this case gay marriages/relationships.

However, my disagreement rises from the motive for such acts, hence I'm against the action itself. I think it'll be very hard to prove a gay relationship affects a society adversely.

And, "dirty" things is a very broad claim. Something very dirty to you can be not that dirty for somebody else. So, I'm not sure you can term any activity you dislike as dirty! I guess eventually the society will have the say about an activity, and I think that's a good thing, because the society will know whether such activity is affecting it.



such hybrid offsprings cannot possibly happen...right?

No, I don't think any such happening has occured in the past. Obviously, you cannot count Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles as an instance :)

gokulan42
02-29-2004, 11:55 PM
such hybrid offsprings cannot possibly happen...right?
I mean first of all they have different haploid number of chromosomes and etc....can't happen ...unless some weird scientist gets hold of that idea...and decides to carry out experiments

How can u even think that animals would even want to do such things....me thinketh that only humans could even come up with such a corrupt idea......didn't this arise from lack of carnal satisfaction......like shidinesh mentioned for Gay ppl......

Hey why not? I am not into biology. Are you sure its not possible between a human and his sibling monkey? Any experts? I am almost sure it is possible. If there are no experts here, I will try to dig something and come back.

We never heard about those bcoz they never survived or it was never allowed to happened (thanks). If we allow gay marriages to be legals, then why not other stuff like polygamy, inappropriate marriages (you know what I mean) and what not. I have nothing against a gay couple haivng their meaning of fun in their boundaries. But, legalizing the marriage is too much for now, as it will expose the whole thing to unfortunate heights.

dinesh
03-01-2004, 12:02 AM
why not other stuff like polygamy

polygamy in general is not acceptable because of the view that marital relationships should only be between two people, so that would be adversely affecting the society, I guess.



inappropriate marriages (you know what I mean)

I honestly don't know what you mean.....is this underage marriages, if so obviously thats very wrong....

gokulan42
03-01-2004, 12:16 AM
why not other stuff like polygamy

polygamy in general is not acceptable because of the view that marital relationships should only be between two people, so that would be adversely affecting the society, I guess.

Why thala, why not. If two guys and a lady have the consensus, what is the harm to the society (if gay marriage is not harmful to the same society).





inappropriate marriages (you know what I mean)

I honestly don't know what you mean.....is this underage marriages, if so obviously thats very wrong....
That and marriage between siblings and stuff like that.

dinesh
03-01-2004, 01:04 AM
The "consensus" is the problem here. Because there cannot be a clear legal definition for it, welfare etc. of the triples(?!) might be neglected. Which is not a very good thing in a modern society where basic human rights should be guaranteed. Plus it is harmful to the structuring of the society, because the concept itself is against the accepted norms of the clearly defined relationship of TWO people.



That and marriage between siblings and stuff like that.

There is scientific proof that children of such union might be disabled. Apart from that, as far as the union itself is concerned, I am not willing to comment. But it is a very good point. One needs to have a very clear mind to justify gay marriages but at the same time prove these types of marriages are not good.

Bluelotus
03-01-2004, 01:05 AM
Polygamy is accepted in certain societies. There is a tribe somehwere in Nepal or the Far-East which encourages women to take up more than 1 husband, and of course certain Islamic state allow men to have more than 1 wife (and lets not forget the Mormons ...I think it is legal in some states in US)

But in general Monogamous relationships are encouraged. In most societies monogamous marriage is the fundamental unit which holds it all together.

Incestual marriages r not good for the species in general. Cos u might end up with retarded children, ask a medic....they should be able to give a clear explanation on why it is a terrible idea.

interspecial progeny not possible cos all species have different number of chromosomes....the embryo will not survive. Even if it came about ....they would be sterile...eg mule.
The ninja turtle....were not born like that they mutated due to either radition or chemical poisoning. Innitially they were turtles, they simply aquired human like physionomie

dinesh
03-01-2004, 01:09 AM
Incestual marriages r not good for the species in general. Cos u might end up with retarded children, ask a medic....they should be able to give a clear explanation on why it is a terrible idea.

But, I don't think that's Gokulan's point here. The marriage itself is the question, not the children of such marriage. Of course the couple may not be willing to have children (just like gay couples). Then how can you not justify it, if you can justify gay unions?

gokulan42
03-01-2004, 01:23 AM
The "consensus" is the problem here. Because there cannot be a clear legal definition for it, welfare etc. of the triples(?!) might be neglected. Which is not a very good thing in a modern society where basic human rights should be guaranteed. Plus it is harmful to the structuring of the society, because the concept itself is against the accepted norms of the clearly defined relationship of TWO people.


Then, how comes the union of two persons of same sex pass this criteria :) Come on, thala.

And, IMO, its not natural, which I know is not the topic here to debate :)

Comenaughty
03-01-2004, 01:30 AM
When Mr. X wants to marry an animal, I don't think a civilized society would accpt that, because we do normally accept that animals have certain rights, and this would fall under animal cruelty.

If anybody can prove that by a gay relationship, a society is affected adversely, then we can have a sound proof against gay relationships. I am unable to find any myself, hence am forced to support individual decisions, in this case gay marriages/relationships.


shidinesh,
if i have to argue against ur above statements, i mite have to be really explicit and prefer avoiding that....but i have jus a qn.... how on earth did u conclude that a coital relationship with an animal can be classified as "animal cruelty"? a pet dog or watever, mite for all possible reason can also enjoy such a coital relationship with a human....

and i reiterate my statement again.... Mr X having a coital relationship isnt gonna affect ur routine an inch..... so if ur logic makes u tell gay marriages shud be legalized, then marriage with animals shud also be legalized...isnt it?

well....accordint to ME, marriage a relationship, which apart from all the necessary entailments, shud also include the ability to produce offspring....

a hypothetical qn..... wat if the entire population on earth decide to have gay marriage and relationships? how will the civilization propogate? a rule if passed, shud be thought on a long term basics....not for momentary satisfaction/success of a certain set of community/ppl....

Comenaughty
03-01-2004, 01:40 AM
And, "dirty" things is a very broad claim. Something very dirty to you can be not that dirty for somebody else. So, I'm not sure you can term any activity you dislike as dirty! I guess eventually the society will have the say about an activity, and I think that's a good thing, because the society will know whether such activity is affecting it.


i guess i need to put a copyright sign blow each of my post..... its very well understood that the statements made by me are obviously......... my opinions!!!! i never said im voicing for the society..... as usual, the SOCIETY is gonna decide abt this for US.... and society consists of Bush and the ppl surrounding him....

dinesh
03-01-2004, 02:02 AM
Then, how comes the union of two persons of same sex pass this criteria Come on, thala.

Because it is between 2 people. That's my point. Read my post carefully.

a pet dog or watever, mite for all possible reason can also enjoy such a coital relationship with a human....

There is no reason scientific nor logical to believe so.

and i reiterate my statement again.... Mr X having a coital relationship isnt gonna affect ur routine an inch..... so if ur logic makes u tell gay marriages shud be legalized, then marriage with animals shud also be legalized...isnt it?

No, it doesn't. The society itself has a commiment to its environment. Hence my arguments about animal cruelty.



a hypothetical qn..... wat if the entire population on earth decide to have gay marriage and relationships? how will the civilization propogate? a rule if passed, shud be thought on a long term basics....not for momentary satisfaction/success of a certain set of community/ppl....

I already raised such a question myself. No satisfactory answer has come up yest

shiva1507
03-09-2004, 12:38 PM
So just because something has existed for a very long time, it doesn't make it right. As I said earlier there will always be people in each and every society with "crooked" tastes. Can we accpet all of them as fine?

anjaligirl
04-20-2004, 11:11 PM
Hey guys, I actually have gay friends, which I think none of you have and I think ite a great idea for gay marriges to be legalized cuz it will make it easier for tehm to live together, get legal protection and to even think about adopting. All those ppl arguing that its against morals for two ppl of same sex together, get over it, there are amny things happening in the world that are not moral, murder, genocide, rape, war ect. What does it matter to you if two ppl love each other and want to live together. It quite frankly none of your business so please dont judge them.

dinesh
04-21-2004, 02:11 AM
All those ppl arguing that its against morals for two ppl of same sex together, get over it, there are amny things happening in the world that are not moral, murder, genocide, rape, war ect. What does it matter to you if two ppl love each other and want to live together. It quite frankly none of your business so please dont judge them.

I'm not sure who this is directed at, but I have no problem regarding the "rights" of two people being together, whatever their sexuality is. The reason being, as you mentioned, it's none of my business what they choose to do, as long as it is not detrimental to the society in general.

However, I do believe I have a right to believe "something is wrong". It is basically my right to form an opinion. An act can be nothing concerning me, but in my mind I can form an opinion whether it's acceptable to me or not. And, as far as gay relationships are concerned I can see no reason why it is right. And as gokulan42 mentioned in an earlier post, if we are to accept gay unions as "OK" stuff, what stops us from recognizing certain "other types" of unions, which have already been mentioned in this topic. I think this is a serious question we should think about, before denouncing morality.

dinesh
04-21-2004, 02:12 AM
So just because something has existed for a very long time, it doesn't make it right. As I said earlier there will always be people in each and every society with "crooked" tastes. Can we accpet all of them as fine?

Dude, this is the second time you have copied texts from my posts, and posted them as your own. What is your problem?

saisrini85
04-21-2004, 04:25 PM
No.. I feel gay marriages are not right! I do not care abt the love gays have between each other.. When the society is not too good to it, why take the plunge into it?? You need to maintain a good relationship with the society to have a successful life.. and i feel gay marriages are against a good successful and happy life!

yogesh220
04-21-2004, 04:45 PM
I think ite a great idea for gay marriges to be legalized cuz it will make it easier for tehm to live together, get legal protection and to even think about adopting. All those ppl arguing that its against morals for two ppl of same sex together, get over it, there are amny things happening in the world that are not moral, murder, genocide, rape


Hey Anjali, Are you sure what you are talking..?as you said in your post, do you think that that many immoral things you mentioned in your arguement like murder, genocide, rape etc should be legalised...? We are all having al those immoral things under control only since we have kept them illegal...and so Gay marriages should be considered illegal too...

anjaligirl
04-23-2004, 02:57 AM
You need to maintain a good relationship with the society to have a successful life.. and i feel gay marriages are against a good successful and happy life!

What does maintaining god relationship with society have to do with anything? Society is just an excuse of barriers. And you might find a gay marriage not happy or sucessful but try telling that to the gay guy who wants happiness.



We are all having al those immoral things under control only since we have kept them illegal...and so Gay marriages should be considered illegal too...

Im am only saying that a society with that much corruption has no right denouncing a person because of their sexual orientation