Gay people? Should they be allowed to marry?

Based on what ?

It seems to me that the only people in this discussion are 'straight'.

Don't you think that Gays might find it a little patronising that straight folk have to act on their behalf all the time. After all, one would have to be very close to the Gay lifestyle to have any understanding at all.
Or do we just learn about it from a book.

Nope...I think people are grateful when you support them.

Why would you have to be "very close to the lifestyle" to support equality for people?

Weird.

Ur right just like when white people acted on behalf of non whites! Just like when men acted on behalf of women for equal rights lol.

You know what ? You aren't even funny.

Well i dunno if u heard but a gay man in the south was murdered for being gay a while back and get this! His killers raped him up his ass! LOL homophobes are just self hating gays in my opinion!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard

Maybe it was his last desire.

Just like it would be a woman's last desire to be raped right?

Just answer the question I asked you a few posts ago.

M-G

To support equality is one thing. To presume to know the Gay life style is quite another.

It seems that many people speak about Gay issues as if they have lived them, which they haven't.



I'm sure most people are. And I'm sure that they would be more grateful, if supporters fully understood their problems instead of jumping on the politically correct bandwagon.

Yes, because unless you're gay you can't understand being prevented from marrying someone you love. ¬_¬

If straight people didn't help fight battles for gay rights, gays would be seriously outnumbered and wouldn't have half the rights they do now in countries like the UK. You don't need to be gay to employ the human attribute of empathy, and understand their situation.

Sure, maybe I can't say that "it's really hard being gay!", because I'm not gay. But it is not in the least patronising to say "gay people should have the same rights as straight people" and to stand up for that.



Yes, but when in this thread were people presuming to know the gay lifestyle, and not just advocating gay rights? Your argument has magically changed since your original point.

I'm not being politically correct - to me it simply isn't an issue, just part of normal human freedom to do and choose what they want...Nothing more, nothing less and I will debate with anybody who tries to limit personal freedom as this is one of the greatest goods man has achieved during the ages.

M-G

PS: I really do have a lot of gay friends and I've heard many horror-stories straight out of their day-to-day life. But as I'm not gay, I can of course never fully grasp what it is like to be gay in this world. I can only help them defend their right to be what they are.

Uderz w stół a nożyce się odezwą :)

What is the problem? All of you who so strongly disagree with myself, arrogant people whom consider themselves so progressive and all those whom don't share your "values" to be backward. Take these few words of true. All mentioned issues contradict values on which western civilization was founded. There is such a rule in the science of civilizations, which state that uncivilized people sooner or later will be included to some strong expanding civilization. You have rejected western civilization which is weak right now, you did not created any civilization yourself and this is why as I have stated earlier Muslim world will take you over someday.



You are so blinded that you don't see that this is your way. I suppose, you support the EU and this is nothing else but huge bureaucracy. What is the nature of all bureaucrats? Standardization, unification!



I'm for the freedom of individual but not for anarchy and public moral degeneration.



Show me one quote when I'm bashing homosexuals? Otherwise you can call yourself a liar...




I do manipulate people? LOL
Actually mass media rather tend towards what you are saying, so this is yours source not mine. Guess what, Zbigniew Herbert famous Polish poet wrote, flow with the mainstream/current? :)

You prove to me without a doubt that there is a relation between being gay and euthanising your 75-year-old grandfather. Once you prove that based on facts, we will discuss further. Otherwise you're just shouting something without any real value.

NB: I never said that you bashed gay ppl. I just stated it as a metaphore of how a lot of time ppl who really hat homosexuals in fact are gays in denial.

M-G

Stop spinning man, I have never claimed so. I have write that the same people support such legislations to be legal.

Still waiting for you to provide a quote where I'm bashing homosexuals...

How about metrosexuals?

Prove that point. I answered your question in my previous post.

M-G

this is a crazy statement. Traitors - ha, ha..........CRAZY. It is a prediction. We all know what happens to predictions and visionaries. He, he..............

lesser: state some sources for your unfounded claims that Western civilisation was founded on gays not marrying, and not euthanising people who are in too pain to live.

In addition, please give a possible scenario as to how embracing these concepts will result in us surrendering to Muslim nations, despite our well-trained armies and nuclear weapons. (Maybe they're too busy having gay sex to fight?)

Finally, give me a good reason why being gay is immoral/bad for society *without* referring to religion, in any form.

Otherwise, all abroad the failtrain!

Maybe you should read program of any left-wing or at least socially liberal party in Europe? This is basically their mantra and their voters support this program.

And then - why are all the anti-gay and anti-euthanasia activists suddenly so silent when I state that to extend the life of a terminally ill person unreasonably long with medication and hence causing more agony and pain within that person is actually an act against the will of God? Also, I would like to know what all those anti-euthanasia activists would do if a loved one of theirs is in terrible pain, terminal without hope of recovering ever when they get a choice: of an end full of dignity, painless and quick or a long, slow process with excruciating pain and agony? Just wondering what they'll do.


Some of my gay friends are actually right-wingers. They vote for the right-wing party and are firmly against euthanasia and abortion. I have had many heated debates with them as I do not agree with them. So you see, they're JUST LIKE any other ppl :)

M-G

There are many minorities.Voyeurs,frotteurs,transvestites,bestiality people,exhibinionists,pedophiles,why should only gays have priviledges?

idiot

you want priveledges for them?

Not me.There is a party if I do not make a mistake and Ditru was a proud member.

Because of the examples you have given, other than homosexuality, they do not involve the consent of all parties involved.

The answer is consensus, southern: gay ppl are usually having consensual sex. Voyeurs: the object of their affection does mostly even not know about them; frotteurs (I have no idea what they are and what they do), transvestites are most of the time not even gay and are to me just plain funny; bestiality performers: hardly consensual sex is there? exhibionists: well, they basically do not hurt ppl, they just make a fool of themselves in public; pedophiles are the most disgusting ppl there are, but besides my personal rejection of them, the fact is that there is no consensual sex. That's why, southern, consensus is the answer to that.

Osiol: your answer is a lot shorter, but we say the same. :)

M-G

Call this like you want, the main point is clear.



This is obvious, this is you the one who should provide sources to back your point. Marriage was always between man and woman.



I have provided to you, one of the rules of the science of civilizations. Read about it and then you will know.



I don't care about gays as long they don't promote publicly their way of life to be some alternative. Some of you are perfect example of how such propaganda might be effective. This pseudo-progressiveness in general showing average people false, destructive model of society, treat public perversion to be normal/natural.

well, whoever seeks "rights" for pedos should be thrown in jail and rot there, too.

No problem with transvestites. However:

Voyeurs infringe on right to privacy
Exhibitionists and frotteurs cause offense for their own gratification (though in an ideal world there'd be nothing wrong with being naked.)
Pedophiles... Do I even need to explain this one?
Bestiality infringes on an animal's rights to freedom from abuse. And... ewww.

Whereas gay people infringe on nobody else's rights.

Edit: oops, beaten. Twice.