[Dead Man]

It's always cute when this is turned into an American thing when the only reason people condemn America is because we are largely the only ones talking about it. Congrats on you country being "bigot free" for 10 year, but it's silly to think that America is the one holding gay marriage back when we're the ones that can't shut up about it. As a result, each year, improvement is made regarding acceptance. Americans don't care about the whole beacon thing (If anything, democracy is working as people ban gay marriage in some states) Democracy was the problem imo. The gay marriage movement is partly responsible by the stupid way it was presented and even now is presented idiotically. It boils down to "If you don't vote against your religious beliefs, you hate gay people!" Shock and awe when that strategy doesn't work. I have no issues with gay marriage but by the rhetoric, I still likely hate gay people & I am so evil I can learn to live with it lol. Rather than putting it in the peoples' hands, it should have been taken away from them and handled as a basic human right which does not always go through the democratic process and state by state.

Oh dear.

[Shurs]

I don't think there should be a debate when it comes to something like this.

It's an equal rights issue.

[Omegasquash]

Am I too late to say that that the first post nailed it? Because the first post nailed it.

Anyone that stands against equal rights for another person is not for equal rights. Basing that solely on a personal belief, religious or spiritual or cultural or whatever, is bigotry. If you are against homosexuals being married and having all of the same claim to rights, privileges and titles, then there is a very good chance that you are bigoted towards homosexuals.

The up side to that is that there is always time to change, so hop to it. I used to not be OK with it as well, because it was how I was raised, and the opinions that I was exposed to. Exposure to the real world did me a helluva lot of good, and I haven't looked back since. It's loads easier to live and let live.

[Emitan]

Doesn't bother me either way. I'm gay myself, and I don't want to get married, a boyfriend would be nice, but I'm not expecting that for a very long time.

I don't want to get married but don't you think we should have the right to?

[DBT85]

As others have said there is no debate to be had in my eyes.

I am a human and you are a human, everything I can do you can do too.

I hope the UK govt. follows through on it's promise to allow same sex marriage in the UK before the next general election in a couple of years.

[Perspicacity]

It's always cute when this is turned into an American thing when the only reason people condemn America is because we are largely the only ones talking about it. Congrats on you country being "bigot free" for 10 year, but it's silly to think that America is the one holding gay marriage back when we're the ones that can't shut up about it. As a result, each year, improvement is made regarding acceptance. Americans don't care about the whole beacon thing (If anything, democracy is working as people ban gay marriage in some states) Democracy was the problem imo. The gay marriage movement is partly responsible by the stupid way it was presented and even now is presented idiotically. It boils down to "If you don't vote against your religious beliefs, you hate gay people!" Shock and awe when that strategy doesn't work. I have no issues with gay marriage but by the rhetoric, I still likely hate gay people & I am so evil I can learn to live with it lol. Rather than putting it in the peoples' hands, it should have been taken away from them and handled as a basic human right which does not always go through the democratic process and state by state.

That isn't democracy. One of the key elements of modern democracy is protection of minority's rights alongside the majority's rule.

[ThLunarian]

How do you deal with bigots? Do you attempt to educate them and risk it falling in deaf ears, or do you publicly shame them and turn them against you forever?

This topic came up on my Facebook feed, where I was lashing out as an angry NC citizen after the amendment passed. I was calling supporters of the amendment ignorant and bigoted, and one of my friends (who also opposed the amendment) said that I was going about this the wrong way, and that I was only fighting fire with fire. I explained that it wasn't the same thing, and I still believe it's not, but he was right that the people I was speaking out against do see it as the same thing.

I guess I'm just kind of confused on how to fight this sort of thing.

[coldvein]

Fuck that, religion has about as much rights to the word marriage as anyone else. My parents got a fucking marriage without anything religious. Gays should be conferred that same right. End of story.

you have been spitting hot fire recently devo. you okay?

the word marriage is so problematic.. ah well. gay marriage, i'm for it. animal marriage and multiple partners marriage too.

[Brannon]

Actually, just being gay means trouble for all those around you. This comprehensive test will detect your gayness, display the consequences thereof, and thus one can come to the conclusion that gay marriage should not be a thing.

Test sponsored by The American Focus on the Heritage of Patriotic Familes Group

Thankfully I passed, which means I'm a better American than some people on GAF.

[OpinionatedCyborg]

It's not a debate. One side is for equality. The other is for bigotry and discrimination. It really is that simple.

No one can marry members of the same sex. Where is the inequality?

[tiff]

The only real question left to debate on the topic is why we're still spending money addressing this issue. Is this really such a high priority issue for anyone that we'd rather have politicians spend time and money on something that affects 4% of the country versus say trying to address more wide-ranging issues like education?

Think about why some people would rather us debate over relatively trivial issues like gay marriage instead of, say, the widening income gap in America.

[ThLunarian]

No one can marry members of the same sex. Where is the inequality?

Straight people can freely marry whoever they fall in love with.

Gay people cannot.

Seems pretty unequal to me.

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Actually, just being gay means trouble for all those around you. This comprehensive test will detect your gayness, display the consequences thereof, and thus one can come to the conclusion that gay marriage should not be a thing. Test sponsored by The American Focus on the Heritage of Patriotic Familes Group Thankfully I passed, which means I'm a better American than some people on GAF.

hahaha

[tiff]

Straight people can freely marry whoever they fall in love with. Gay people cannot. Seems pretty unequal to me.

Who cares if you can marry who you love? That's not what the issue is about.

[Solstice]

Who cares if you can marry who you love? That's not what the issue is about.

The gay people who are being told they can't marry. That's who cares

[FStop7]

Can anyone present a reason to disallow gay marriage that is not religious in nature?

[Luap]

I ussually dont even bother voicing my opinion because the fact that we're living in 2012 and this is still a thing to debate over is beyond retarded and just makes me shake my head in disbelief. I just assume people think i have common sense.

Pretty much how I feel. I was watching the news when they broke the story, and then they interviewed all these "members of the black community" who voiced their deepest regrets that Obama supported gay marriage. It's so fucking shameful to hear people say shit like that. And I feel that it's especially hypocritical to hear older African Americans say that, when they know damn well how it feels to be discriminated against, and to not have equal rights. It just boggles my mind.

[Perkel]

@ FStop7

I'm not antigay or anything and even have some friends who are lesbians, gays.

Here my 50c

From my point of view as one dude i don't give a flying fuck what other people do in their bedrooms. So sure have those marriages and be happy.

From point of view as country i see it as this:

I give special rights to people (default as woman and man) to have special sort of agreement that will improve their selfbeing (taxes, housing, and many other pros) and try to ease their life as they probably will have kids. Also creating full family with mom dad and kids will probably make them "healthy" citizents since they have strong bond (own children), and by healthy i mean prosperious and creating more kids who in few years will add to value of your nation and probably will make life better to other people by their work. And i will try to help them if they have trouble. As Country i invest money (or loose on some parts) to create new people who will be future of country.

In Gay marriage all above is invalid. I loose money and gain nothing in return because, it can't create new people.

And if we dig more on Gay marriage side what is diffrence between them and single people ? Why single people can't take those benefits of marriage systems ? why i must pay taxes if my friend leave me something after his death ? Why if my friend give me cash for free i must pay tax for it ? So if i'm not in love then i'm worse ? Why can't we create marriages of not 2 people but 5 or 10 ?

I agree there should be some civil agreements and help them to get taxfree from dead loved ones, but full mariage status is out of question until they can procreate.

The whole thing isn't about love, because there isn't any law that can actively to stop loving your loved one (by sending you to jail and by other means) but it's about money and issues people have with werb marriage itself themself being "not married" as discrimination of their love. And in reality marriage is not about love but own family which they can't reproduce.

To many people see those people saying pedo , gays, lesbos with their crosses in hands acting like Inquisition to save "normal" people from growing gay sickness and don't see people who have valid reasons to not let people of same sex have same + that "normal" man and woman system.

To summarize this wall of text. If people of same sex are allowed to have full mariage status then any people should be allowed to have same tax, finantial and many other + what full mariages have. And that is problem to country.

I as alone dude i say "sure" i don't fucking care about it. But as a group of people representing country (goverment) i would say no. Not because i am evil prick but i have to consider repercusion of this to whole nation (single people issue) and finantial part of it as country won't support itself by gumdrops and jellybeans.

[Sylver]

I'm not in favor of gay marriage. Just get rid of civil marriage altogether. The government shouldn't spend our money celebrating unions and administrating our private lives.

Your heir/legatee will care about your "private live" and they will need government (administration) to solve their conflict of interests, and they will need the way you are engaged and I supose you're someone's residuary legatee.

[Mercury Fred]

@ FStop7 I'm not antigay or anything and even have some friends who are lesbians, gays. Here my 50c From my point of view as one dude i don't give a flying fuck what other people do in their bedrooms. So sure have those marriages and be happy. From point of view as country i see it as this: I give special rights to people (default as woman and man) to have special sort of agreement that will improve their selfbeing (taxes, housing, and many other pros) and try to ease their life as they probably will have kids. Also creating full family with mom dad and kids will probably make them "healthy" citizents since they have strong bond (own children), and by healthy i mean prosperious and creating more kids who in few years will add to value of your nation and probably will make life better to other people by their work. And i will try to help them if they have trouble. As Country i invest money (or loose on some parts) to create new people who will be future of country. In Gay marriage all above is invalid. I loose money and gain nothing in return because, it can't create new people. And if we dig more on Gay marriage side what is diffrence between them and single people ? Why single people can't take those benefits of marriage systems ? why i must pay taxes if my friend leave me something after his death ? Why if my friend give me cash for free i must pay tax for it ? So if i'm not in love then i'm worse ? Why can't we create marriages of not 2 people but 5 or 10 ? I agree there should be some civil agreements and help them to get taxfree from dead loved ones, but full mariage status is out of question until they can procreate. The whole thing isn't about love, because there isn't any law that can actively to stop loving your loved one (by sending you to jail and by other means) but it's about money and issues people have with werb marriage itself themself being "not married" as discrimination of their love. And in reality marriage is not about love but own family which they can't reproduce. To many people see those people saying pedo , gays, lesbos with their crosses in hands acting like Inquisition to save "normal" people from growing gay sickness and don't see people who have valid reasons to not let people of same sex have same + that "normal" man and woman system. To summarize this wall of text. If people of same sex are allowed to have full mariage status then any people should be allowed to have same tax, finantial and many other + what full mariages have. And that is problem to country. I as alone dude i say "sure" i don't fucking care about it. But as a group of people representing country (goverment) i would say no. Not because i am evil prick but i have to consider repercusion of this to whole nation (single people issue) and finantial part of it as country won't support itself by gumdrops and jellybeans.

...

[tiff]

The gay people who are being told they can't marry. That's who cares

They'd do better to argue why their relationships can be just as stable environments as straight couples for the purposes of raising children, since that's the primary interest the government has in regulating the institution of marriage. Just loving someone doesn't give you the right to marry them, after all.

[Brannon]

I give special rights to people (default as woman and man) to have special sort of agreement that will improve their selfbeing (taxes, housing, and many other pros) and try to ease their life as they probably will have kids. Also creating full family with mom dad and kids will probably make them "healthy" citizents since they have strong bond (own children), and by healthy i mean prosperious and creating more kids who in few years will add to value of your nation and probably will make life better to other people by their work. And i will try to help them if they have trouble. As Country i invest money (or loose on some parts) to create new people who will be future of country. In Gay marriage all above is invalid. I loose money and gain nothing in return because, it can't create new people.

#1. Adoption.

#2. Fuck #1, this whole reasoning is ass prone.

#3. What in god's fuck man.

[Luap]

I'm not antigay or anything and even have some friends who are lesbians, gays.

Ah yes, the old "I have gay friends" opener. This is going to be rich.

I give special rights to people (default as woman and man) to have special sort of agreement that will improve their selfbeing (taxes, housing, and many other pros) and try to ease their life as they probably will have kids. Also creating full family with mom dad and kids will probably make them "healthy" citizents since they have strong bond (own children), and by healthy i mean prosperious and creating more kids who in few years will add to value of your nation and probably will make life better to other people by their work. And i will try to help them if they have trouble. As Country i invest money (or loose on some parts) to create new people who will be future of country. In Gay marriage all above is invalid. I loose money and gain nothing in return because, it can't create new people. I agree there should be some civil agreements and help them to get taxfree from dead loved ones, but full mariage status is out of question until they can procreate. The whole thing isn't about love, because there isn't any law that can actively to stop loving your loved one (by sending you to jail and by other means) but it's about money and issues people have with werb marriage itself themself being "not married" as discrimination of their love. And in reality marriage is not about love but own family which they can't reproduce.

What load of crap, Perkel. As if there aren't enough babies being born in the world. Ever hear of adoption?

The rest of your argument is so braindead I'm not even going to bother with a retort.

[Struct09]

I give special rights to people (default as woman and man) to have special sort of agreement that will improve their selfbeing (taxes, housing, and many other pros) and try to ease their life as they probably will have kids. Also creating full family with mom dad and kids will probably make them "healthy" citizents since they have strong bond (own children), and by healthy i mean prosperious and creating more kids who in few years will add to value of your nation and probably will make life better to other people by their work. And i will try to help them if they have trouble. As Country i invest money (or loose on some parts) to create new people who will be future of country. In Gay marriage all above is invalid. I loose money and gain nothing in return because, it can't create new people.

So should infertile couples not be allowed to marry?

And if you're going to view marriage as an investment (in tax money) with the return being kids who contribute to society, you should also account for gay couples who adopt. If they had the benefits of marriage, adoption could be an even more attractive option.

[Luap]

They'd do better to argue why their relationships can be just as stable environments as straight couples for the purposes of raising children, since that's the primary interest the government has in regulating the institution of marriage. Just loving someone doesn't give you the right to marry them, after all.

It comes down to the individuals. There are so many shit parents who are straight, and there are so many gay couples that would make amazing parents. Why should the entire gay community have to prove themselves to be fit for parenting? That seems absurd to me.

[cutmeamango]

Call it marriage, civil union, or life partnership contract.
If it guarantees the rights of wealth co-ownership and tutelage, great. Any gender combination is welcome.


But the complete symbolism of "marriage" and its rituals doesn't strike me as a primary necessity. And most often than not this seems to be the battleground of debates, at least here in Brazil.
I can't personally gauge the satisfaction of having a standard marriage (western culture) or its benefits to the relationship in the long (or short :P) run, and I do think a couple should be able to perform a celebration and announcement of their ties in the happiest way the possibly can, but if directly confronts others beliefs, either they shouldn't complain or make arrangements.

[B-Dex]

It's ok for this lady to be married and have kids? LOL

[tiff]

It comes down to the individuals. There are so many shit parents who are straight, and there are so many gay couples that would make amazing parents. Why should the entire gay community have to prove themselves to be fit for parenting? That seems absurd to me.

Because some situations are generally better than others for child-rearing. I mean, you would agree that more often than not, a child born to a couple living together in a stable relationship is going to have an easier time growing up than one born to two people who barely know each other, yes? And the government has an promoting stable growth environments for children?

To be clear I would imagine a stable homosexual relationship is for the most part identical to a stable heterosexual relationship in this regard, it's more about issue framing. Love is an emotional appeal that has little relevance to the actual purpose of the institution.

[BeesEight]

We have same-sex mariage since 2003 and same-sex couples can adopt since 2006. If you want to know what happened as a result of this? Pictures of those first gay people getting married in newspapers. As far as I can remember, there was no public outcry about it, there were no protests that I can recall and you know why? Because it's only a big deal for those gay people who are just like you and me, but who love someone of the same sex. If you are against it, why not forbid marriage with ugly people? You don't want to have sex with them either. That's about as much of a reason you could have. "Ieuw, gay sex is gross, therefore I don't want them to have the right to marry one another." And about "let's give it a different name!" WTF? You Americans are way too defensive about things that belong to religion, not to politics. I understand that some religions will not allow gay people to get married in their church or whatever, but it's been a few years since religion and state have been split. The USA may in the past have been a shining beacon of democracy and human rights, but that time has long since gone in my view.

This pretty much it.

Even when our conservative leaders got in and tried to re-open this debate, it was quickly shot down. It happened, we moved on and society kept going as if nothing changed. I thought at the time we were pretty slow in adopting this as Europe had already been making the progression. Who knew it would take the United States over ten years to do the same.

And you can bet, leading up to the decision we did the whole song and dance of "unions" and "marriage is religious" and whatnot. In the end, none of the problems people proselytized ever came about.

And for those saying same sex marriage spits in the face of Christianity - keep in mind there are many Christian denominations that are more than happy to conduct same-sex marriages. Christianity, as whole, is not a very unified religion on any matter.

[darkwing]

And for those saying same sex marriage spits in the face of Christianity - keep in mind there are many Christian denominations that are more than happy to conduct same-sex marriages.

which Christian denomination?

[bengraven]

We have this thread already: it's the intolerance thread.

[BeesEight]

which Christian denomination?

It wasn't even that difficult of a google search.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-af..._denominations

[ChiTownBuffalo]

Absolutely batshit crazy lady at Lincoln, NE meeting re: LGBT protections

"P- E- N- I- S goes into the anus to rupture intestines. The more a man does this the more he'll be a fatality or a homicider…" "A huge percent of gay men in school grounds molest boys, partly because they don't have AIDS yet…" "Hillary Clinton's roommate four years in college was a gay woman. To avoid going gay like Clinton did, college students need single rooms and single gender dorms… A college woman is seduced with illegal Rohypnol to go gay." "Jesus was kissed by Judas, a homo, who tried to sabotage Jesus' kind ideas. Do you choose Jesus, a celibate, or Judas, a homo? You have to choose!"

[zoku88]

They'd do better to argue why their relationships can be just as stable environments as straight couples for the purposes of raising children, since that's the primary interest the government has in regulating the institution of marriage. Just loving someone doesn't give you the right to marry them, after all.

Unless the government denies marriage licenses to those clearly unfit to raise children, I don't think they would have to.

Because some situations are generally better than others for child-rearing. I mean, you would agree that more often than not, a child born to a couple living together in a stable relationship is going to have an easier time growing up than one born to two people who barely know each other, yes? And the government has an promoting stable growth environments for children? To be clear I would imagine a stable homosexual relationship is for the most part identical to a stable heterosexual relationship in this regard, it's more about issue framing. Love is an emotional appeal that has little relevance to the actual purpose of the institution.

I don't think there's any criteria with any heterosexual couple to not be able to marry, even if they just met the day before? (AFAIK.)

If the government really does care about only marrying people who can effectively raise children, they do a pretty poor job of it.

[jdogmoney]

Absolutely batshit crazy lady at Lincoln, NE meeting re: LGBT protections

I made it 52 seconds.

[B-Dex]

Absolutely batshit crazy lady at Lincoln, NE meeting re: LGBT protections

I posted it but nobody watched :(

[ChiTownBuffalo]

Its the guy in the background that makes it worth it.

[Gaborn]

Because some situations are generally better than others for child-rearing. I mean, you would agree that more often than not, a child born to a couple living together in a stable relationship is going to have an easier time growing up than one born to two people who barely know each other, yes? And the government has an promoting stable growth environments for children? To be clear I would imagine a stable homosexual relationship is for the most part identical to a stable heterosexual relationship in this regard, it's more about issue framing. Love is an emotional appeal that has little relevance to the actual purpose of the institution.

But that's irrelevant considering the sheer number of states that already allow gays and gay couples to adopt. If you allow us to adopt don't you want to give our kids the same opportunity to see their parents in a married relationship (which is generally but not always a stabilizing force in a relationship) which would ALSO give those kids the benefit of certainty what would happen to them if one of the parents died?

[jorgeton]

Lots of posts nailed why "gay marriage" (i like the term same-sex marriage a lot more) is important to LGBT folks. The emotional/love/symbolic component is pretty large too. When Obama went on the air and talked about how same-sex marriage is A-ok with him, I'm sure so many young (and old) LGBT people were moved to tears. A sitting president affirming your humanity.. amazing.

For so long LGBT people have been "the other," hated for simply loving another person who happens to be of the same gender. to hear the president of the united states finally acknowledge to mainstream america that we're also in loving couples, raising kids, creating our own families, and not that we're some weird monsters living in a (pink) shack down the road, well, it was pretty great. If I weren't dead inside, I would've probably shed a tear as well.

Marriage is not the end-all, be-all, but it's important to a lot of people. Why shouldn't I be able to marry the man I love I'm accepting applications, btw and have it recognized by the State? It's powerful to call someone your husband and have it mean the exact same thing it means to my straight married friends.

[Perkel]

Ah yes, the old "I have gay friends" opener. This is going to be rich. What load of crap, Perkel. As if there aren't enough babies being born in the world. Ever hear of adoption? The rest of your argument is so braindead I'm not even going to bother with a retort.

Dude where i work there are dudes which are my friends and are gays. It's nothing uncammon in this age. And i live in poland which is known as "second Vatican" and i like going for drinking to "gay club" and i'm enyoing this.

Sure adoption is good idea in my opinion to create base for marriage system for gays and lesbians but i don't want to go into that direction because there is whole another issue of "adoption by gays" thing. Children should not be material to test social experiments in my opinion and this is conflict with I said in first sentence (adoption is good idea).

What i mean is: children are very fragilee and are also very nasty monsters, i saw children that had hell in school just because of their parents being poor, or not having a dad (something like "your mum is slut and whore") being son of a gay is like being 1st target for bullies.

In perfect world there wouldn't be bullies and things like that but it is freaking real world. There are always bullies.

I would be ok with this if they would provide individual learning leaving all this "morality" issue.

Counting morality i don't fucking know really. I don't have children of my own, i wasn't adopted and i'm not sociologist and can't predict if this will be actualy good thing for a child or bad thing 100% sure. I oppose using kids as social experiment and i don't have knowelage to be sure it's good for them and simply even shadow chance of being it bad for child is auto "NO" from me.

[BeesEight]

Dude where i work there are dudes which are my friends and are gays. It's nothing uncammon in this age. And i live in poland which is known as "second Vatican" and i like going for drinking to "gay club" and i'm enyoing this. Sure adoption is good idea in my opinion to create base for marriage system for gays and lesbians but i don't want to go into that direction because there is whole another issue of "adoption by gays" thing. Children should not be material to test social experiments in my opinion and this is conflict with I said in first sentence (adoption is good idea). What i mean is: children are very fragilee and are also very nasty monsters, i saw children that had hell in school just because of their parents being poor, or not having a dad (something like "your mum is slut and whore") being son of a gay is like being 1st target for bullies. In perfect world there wouldn't be bullies and things like that but it is freaking real world. There are always bullies. I would be ok with this if they would provide individual learning leaving all this "morality" issue. Counting morality i don't fucking know really. I don't have children of my own, i wasn't adopted and i'm not sociologist and can't predict if this will be actualy good thing for a child or bad thing 100% sure. I oppose using kids as social experiment and i don't have knowelage to be sure it's good for them and simply even shadow chance of being it bad for child is auto "NO" from me.

No offence, but your arguments are absolutely awful.

I suggest you try talking about this with your gay friends. They should be able to do a far better job of explaining things to you than Gaf can.

Edit: Just to clarify a little more, as you've already mentioned you're not a native English speaker so that may help with the discussion. Also, your friends will also be able to provide personal experiences and explanations that can often be missing when Gaf gets into debates that skew more to the moral and logical side. Not trying to dissuade the discourse here or anything.

[FStop7]

Okay, can anyone who is not retarded give me a reason why gay marriage should be disallowed that not religious in nature?

[GungHo]

Too bad. I was hoping to go back to school to learn something about gay sex.

[Speevy]

Absolutely batshit crazy lady at Lincoln, NE meeting re: LGBT protections

She sounds like a robot programmed to randomly argue with things.

Sandwiches force microchips to enslave the border patrol.

Can we expect the federal government to reciprocate their money laundering on the basis of reduced school lunches?

[tiff]

But that's irrelevant considering the sheer number of states that already allow gays and gay couples to adopt. If you allow us to adopt don't you want to give our kids the same opportunity to see their parents in a married relationship (which is generally but not always a stabilizing force in a relationship) which would ALSO give those kids the benefit of certainty what would happen to them if one of the parents died?

I think by allowing gays to adopt it naturally follows that gays be allowed to marry, yes.

[Gaborn]

I think by allowing gays to adopt it naturally follows that gays be allowed to marry, yes.

Good, I just wanted to get that clear :). In the US this should NOT be a difficult policy question. We already DO that. In Europe ironically it's reversed, it's much more common for gay couples to have marriage and such and LESS so for adoption rights.

[Perkel]

No offence, but your arguments are absolutely awful. I suggest you try talking about this with your gay friends. They should be able to do a far better job of explaining things to you than Gaf can. Edit: Just to clarify a little more, as you've already mentioned you're not a native English speaker so that may help with the discussion. Also, your friends will also be able to provide personal experiences and explanations that can often be missing when Gaf gets into debates that skew more to the moral and logical side. Not trying to dissuade the discourse here or anything.

What arguments ?

I basically stated that:

Marriage for gay people is okey if they adopt child. Because they will fill role of full family and fullfill role of marriage by country perspective in my first post.

I don't want to dive into "adopted by gays" thing because i don't know what to think about it and i don't have any experience knowelage to talk about it. Kids are cruel if they want be and it is not something you can argue about.

Also i talked about it with my gay friends and they also don't have a clue about adoption subject. One was saying absolutly no. And other would be happy about it but because of reason i stated above (school problems and many other daily life problems) he wasn't sure about it 100%.

[BeesEight]

What arguments ? I basically stated that: Marriage for gay people is okey if they adopt child. Because they will fill role of full family and fullfill role of marriage by contry perspective in my first post. I don't want to dive into "adopted by gays" thing because i don't know what to think about it and i don't have any experience knowelage to talk about it. Kids are cruel if they want be and it is not something you can argue about.

Your past post seemed to suggest that allowing same sex couples to adopt was merely for some social experimentation.

Kids will be cruel no matter what household you raise your children in. So even if children aren't raised in a same-sex household, they will get teased. And I don't think the solution to this is to remove all reasons that children bully others for but to address bullying itself.

[Nazgul_Hunter]

While my country doesn't allow Gay marriage, we've had separation between what's called "Civil Marriage" and "Religious Marriage," and in practice they're both not recognized by the other. Most churches require that you're civil married before they marry you.

[Copernicus]

Okay, can anyone who is not retarded give me a reason why gay marriage should be disallowed that not religious in nature?

It's icky.