Pet Shop Boys Community

Is that a bloke or a bird ?

george Bush isnt "attacking" gay people. he simply upholding what most americans seem to agree with. marriage is between a man and a woman.
thats what the definition is. homosexuals labeling everything homophobe who dont agree with changing this long held institution and concept passed down from who they call their deity wont help homosexuals get any better PR.

if they were smart, instead of always being bitchy and calling people vile and homophobes, like rosie o donnel they would create their own style of union. but instead they seem to want to turn marriage into a big battle ground when they could simply avoid a fight and anaimosity by creating their own ceremony.

cripes, homosexuals you would think would LOVE to make their own style "flamboyant ceremony".but no, they want to change our institution.

Any two people in love should have the right to express that however they feel. Here in Queensland they don't yet, but I feel a change is in the wind.

I'll take this topic one step further and discuss a couple - legally wed or not - having the right to children, because somehow I think that's more of a pressing issue. There was a HUGE uproar two years ago when a lesbian couple wanted IVF to have a baby, which started a bit of public discussion. My views on that (whether you want them or not) are that any two responsible adults with good core values, should be allowed to have a family. It absolutely sickens and disgusts me to see the way some legally wed heterosexual couples 'drag up' their kids. Child abuse is rife here, as everywhere, and I think the world would be a better place if more children were born into loving family environments, whatever the sexual preferences, gender, or marital status of their 'parents'.

Think of the stupidity of our society: A woman may legally:

* Marry an absolute d#ckhead, who spends all his time at the Casino, slaps her around, or spends their welfare check on beer and cigarettes.

* Drink enough alcohol during her pregnancy to ensure fetal alcohol syndrome and lifelong developmental problems for the child, but hey, it's "her body"!

* Smoke during pregnancy, or passively smoke around the child to the point that respiratory problems such as asthma are inevitable.

* Raise the child to be Mormon or Brethren, and give it a warped and totally screwed up take on the world.

* Expose the child to Jimmy Barnes, Shania Twain, or Delta Goodrum at an impressionable age.

Oh yes, she can do all this and much, much more, before society will bat an eyelid. But if she were to exchange vows with someone of the same gender and publicly raise her child with another woman, she would be all but publicly stoned around this redneck place.

And God forbid two blokes get clucky!

despite the failure of "marriage" bweteen a man and a woman in alot of cases, that still doesnt change the fact that marriage, the institution, is between a man and a woman.

certain countrys have cultures, beliefs and insitutions. whether you think religion is a bunch of crap, the majority here, want to keep "marriage' as it is. between a man and a woman. the history of marriage comes from the bible where the deity decreed that a man and a woman should join as one. thats where the ceremony was derived from.

yet there are some, and alot the very same people who would take issue with enforcing ones beliefs on others culture's seem to have no problem in this instance. americans dont agree, and its most likely generated by their views from religion.

glennjridge wrote:despite the failure of "marriage" bweteen a man and a woman in alot of cases, that still doesnt change the fact that marriage, the institution, is between a man and a woman.

certain countrys have cultures, beliefs and insitutions. whether you think religion is a bunch of crap, the majority here, want to keep "marriage' as it is. between a man and a woman. the history of marriage comes from the bible where the deity decreed that a man and a woman should join as one. thats where the ceremony was derived from.

yet there are some, and alot the very same people who would take issue with enforcing ones beliefs on others culture's seem to have no problem in this instance. americans dont agree, and its most likely generated by their views from religion.

But, as I said earlier, institutions change with the times. There's simply no plausible reason why it shouldn't change. Gay marriages aren't hurting anyone in ANY OTHER WAY then some people "not liking it". Well, not liking something is NOT a valid argument for discrimination. The fact is that many people have extremely strong views against gay marriages. Now, if the marriages themselves aren't hurting them, WHY then are they so strongly opposed?? There really is only one answer and you know what it is...

BTW, as far as I know the institution of marriage as a ceremony where man and woman are bonded predates the bible several thousands of years.

RaciePSB wrote:Any two people in love should have the right to express that however they feel. Here in Queensland they don't yet, but I feel a change is in the wind.

I'll take this topic one step further and discuss a couple - legally wed or not - having the right to children, because somehow I think that's more of a pressing issue. There was a HUGE uproar two years ago when a lesbian couple wanted IVF to have a baby, which started a bit of public discussion. My views on that (whether you want them or not) are that any two responsible adults with good core values, should be allowed to have a family. It absolutely sickens and disgusts me to see the way some legally wed heterosexual couples 'drag up' their kids. Child abuse is rife here, as everywhere, and I think the world would be a better place if more children were born into loving family environments, whatever the sexual preferences, gender, or marital status of their 'parents'.

Think of the stupidity of our society: A woman may legally:

* Marry an absolute d#ckhead, who spends all his time at the Casino, slaps her around, or spends their welfare check on beer and cigarettes.

* Drink enough alcohol during her pregnancy to ensure fetal alcohol syndrome and lifelong developmental problems for the child, but hey, it's "her body"!

* Smoke during pregnancy, or passively smoke around the child to the point that respiratory problems such as asthma are inevitable.

* Raise the child to be Mormon or Brethren, and give it a warped and totally screwed up take on the world.

* Expose the child to Jimmy Barnes, Shania Twain, or Delta Goodrum at an impressionable age.

Oh yes, she can do all this and much, much more, before society will bat an eyelid. But if she were to exchange vows with someone of the same gender and publicly raise her child with another woman, she would be all but publicly stoned around this redneck place.

And God forbid two blokes get clucky!

I absolutely totally agree.

I'd even go so far as to say that I feel we've reached a point in history where we have the means to ensure better protection of kids. In my job as a school psychologist I see LOTS of parents who should never ever have had kids and they often have 3 or 4 of them even though they take incredible little interest in them.

Why are we so protective of individual rights, that we can't discuss whether it should be seen as a human right to have kids? I don't think it should be. As long as the law doesn't dicriminate on the basis of WHAT YOU ARE, but DOES discriminate on the basis of WHAT YOU DO if that actions cause obvious and great harm to kids, then I think some legislation is in order.

For instance. I don't think severe drug addicts should be allowed to have kids - NOT EVEN REHABILITATED ONES. Why aren't we discussing mandatory sterilization of drug addicts? Or mandatory sterilization of very hardened criminals? Problematic issues for sure, but it is also very problematic that these people have kids.

I'd like to see legislation that stated that every kid had a right to a loving home. That is the only requirement and basically all a kid needs. Obviously the sexuality of the childrearers has nothing to do with whether they're able to provide a loving home, so sexuality should never be an issue.

Well I reckon George 'W' should do the honourable thing and take Phoney Blair up the aisle.....

glennjridge wrote:marriage is between a man and a woman.
thats what the definition is.

cripes, homosexuals you would think would LOVE to make their own style "flamboyant ceremony".but no, they want to change our institution.

Why should it only be your institution?

Why should marriage be exclusively for a man and a woman?

I'd appreciate your comments please.

And, by the way, it saves time when typing if you just call homosexuals gay

glennjridge wrote: the majority here want to keep "marriage' as it is. between a man and a woman.

the history of marriage comes from the bible where the deity decreed that a man and a woman should join as one. thats where the ceremony was derived from.

'the majority here' think no such thing, get your facts right. All you have to do is read what's at the top of the page - 82% in favour of gay marriage

the blessed bastard bible doesn't make any reference to men taking a woman up the arse, but that's been legalised in the UK.

Why should we take any notice of a dusty old irrelevant book of fiction from a couple of thousand years ago anyway?

big boy wrote:

Why should we take any notice of a dusty old irrelevant book of fiction from a couple of thousand years ago anyway?[/quote]

LMAO - well said that man. The day I'll pay any attention to the Catholic Church - as that is the religion forced upon me from birth - will be the day it doesn't condemn homosexuality, stops covering up the actions of paedophile Priests, allows women Priests and condones contraception to help prevent large families/sexual diseases in poorer countries and the extra hardship that follows. I love the idea of a 'celibate' group of people lecturing people about sexual morality (amongst other things) - after all you don't go to McDonalds to ask someone about your car engine.

BlueSwan wrote:

glennjridge wrote:despite the failure of "marriage" bweteen a man and a woman in alot of cases, that still doesnt change the fact that marriage, the institution, is between a man and a woman.

certain countrys have cultures, beliefs and insitutions. whether you think religion is a bunch of crap, the majority here, want to keep "marriage' as it is. between a man and a woman. the history of marriage comes from the bible where the deity decreed that a man and a woman should join as one. thats where the ceremony was derived from.

yet there are some, and alot the very same people who would take issue with enforcing ones beliefs on others culture's seem to have no problem in this instance. americans dont agree, and its most likely generated by their views from religion.

But, as I said earlier, institutions change with the times. There's simply no plausible reason why it shouldn't change. Gay marriages aren't hurting anyone in ANY OTHER WAY then some people "not liking it". Well, not liking something is NOT a valid argument for discrimination. The fact is that many people have extremely strong views against gay marriages. Now, if the marriages themselves aren't hurting them, WHY then are they so strongly opposed?? There really is only one answer and you know what it is...

BTW, as far as I know the institution of marriage as a ceremony where man and woman are bonded predates the bible several thousands of years.

I agree. You can't drag the past, or the bible into any of this. In the bible it was acceptable to root around with your wife's handmaiden if your wife had problems conceiving. Now days, thank God, there's IVF. Raising examples from the bible really won't make for a sensible or compelling argument. It's been a while since I read the bible, but it does have some very good advice in it, in parts. I like "Do unto others as you would be done by", and if I were a gay man or woman, I certainly wouldn't want anybody telling me who and how I can love, or express that love. People who have a problem with gay marraiges have a problem with gays, period, and therefore their bigoted opinions don't count.

PS - I know of a gay man who married. Unfortunately, it was to a woman. Both are miserable and unfulfilled, but hey, the folks at church are happy. His best friend (and I suspect, lover) remained in the church also. He never married, and (so far as I know), remained celibate and still is. What a choice: to live a lie, or to live alone, because of the 'rules' and judgement of others.

That said, I strongly believe in God.. I just think it's We who've got it all so terribly wrong.

RaciePSB wrote:I strongly believe in God

Who?

No point in marriage anyway. You don't need a piece of paper to declare love for somebody.

Dave

lol big boy I should have clarified I mean in america where I am posting from as far as the poll.

as far as why should some dusty bible dictate instituions and culture,
might as well then get rid of all the cultures on this planet then simply because to certain other cultures they seem odd or unfair. yet I doubt many here would agree we should shut down others cultures.