homohuwelijk

Digitale ontmoetingsplek. Hier kunnen berichten geplaatst worden die niet in een van de andere categorieën passen.
Gesloten

homohuwlijk moet kunnen of niet?

Ja, tuurlijk
18
37%
Ja
12
24%
Mnee
5
10%
Ben je gek!
14
29%
 
Totaal aantal stemmen: 49

Skylighter
Lid
Berichten: 2088
Lid geworden op: 06 jun 2004, 17:54

Bericht door Skylighter »

Ben net terug van vakantie en heb geen zin om heel dit topic door te gaan lezen.

Maar ik vind alles best wat die gozers doen zolang mij er maar niet mee lastig vallen.


Rick
Jurryt
Lid
Berichten: 2488
Lid geworden op: 02 jul 2004, 01:24

Bericht door Jurryt »

en stel nou dat het 2 vrouwen waren die heel knap zijn?
Gebruikersavatar
Timo
Lid
Berichten: 1836
Lid geworden op: 13 okt 2003, 20:55

Bericht door Timo »

:)
Starting up again
Gebruikersavatar
okke
Lid
Berichten: 3362
Lid geworden op: 25 feb 2003, 20:31
Locatie: Rosmalen
Gegeven: 1 keer

Bericht door okke »

mauser schreef:mannen zijn gemaakt voor vrouwen

en vrouwen voor mannen
conclusie?: mannen zijn niet gemaakt voor mannen
mauser schreef:it's nice to be important but it is more important to be nice
conclusie: realiseer je dat sommige mannen voor mannen kiezen en sommige vrouwen voor vrouwen en probeer nice te zijn voor hen.
Zelf Denken Samen Leven - Humanistisch Verbond
jacob
Lid
Berichten: 865
Lid geworden op: 29 feb 2004, 16:34

Bericht door jacob »

" De gene die het luidst tegenstemt is zijn eigen waarheid nog niet gewend "

:) plak dat maar op een tegel
Gebruikersavatar
mauser
Lid
Berichten: 195
Lid geworden op: 27 dec 2003, 11:11
Locatie: horst

Bericht door mauser »

mauser schreef:mannen zijn gemaakt voor vrouwen

en vrouwen voor mannen
sorry het was niet helemaal af
ik bedoel dit voor het huwelijk dan he
dat sommigen homo zijn daar kiezen ze zelf voor
als je meer van een man/vrouw houd dat maakt toch niets uit
maar deze topic gaat over huwelijk en ik bedoel huwelijk is alleen voor man vrouw dat is mijn mening en daar vragen ze na in deze poll

mauser
It's not about dying for your country. It's about lettig your enemy's die for theirs!!
Veteraan
Lid
Lid
Berichten: 176
Lid geworden op: 17 jul 2004, 16:33

Bericht door Veteraan »

Harsha schreef:en stel nou dat het 2 vrouwen waren die heel knap zijn?
Dat zijn er dan 2 minder beschikbaar voor de mannen :(
Gebruikersavatar
mauser
Lid
Berichten: 195
Lid geworden op: 27 dec 2003, 11:11
Locatie: horst

Bericht door mauser »

als er 2 hele knappe vrouwen zijn dan.....
mogen die ook niet trouwen
It's not about dying for your country. It's about lettig your enemy's die for theirs!!
pieter de vleminck
Lid
Berichten: 211
Lid geworden op: 10 dec 2003, 20:31
Locatie: denderleeuw oost-vlaanderen belgie

Bericht door pieter de vleminck »

Mja zelf ben ik ook niet voor een huwelijk maar zolang we in een vrij land leven vind ik dat mensen moeten kunnen trouwen met degen waarvoor hij zelf kiest ogeacht geslacht of afkomst.

En waarom is het vies als 2 mannen kussen, ik heb het al veel gezien en ik heb zelfs vrienden die bi zijn m'n ex vriendin is zelfs bi dus waarom dat vies vinden? het toont zelfs moed om dit in het openbaar te doen.
Gebruikersavatar
okke
Lid
Berichten: 3362
Lid geworden op: 25 feb 2003, 20:31
Locatie: Rosmalen
Gegeven: 1 keer

Bericht door okke »

mauser schreef:ik bedoel dit voor het huwelijk dan he
dat sommigen homo zijn daar kiezen ze zelf voor
als je meer van een man/vrouw houd dat maakt toch niets uit
maar deze topic gaat over huwelijk en ik bedoel huwelijk is alleen voor man vrouw dat is mijn mening en daar vragen ze na in deze poll
Het is mij niet duidelijk waarop jij je mening dat een huwelijk alleen voor man vrouw relaties bedoelt is basseert.

Je opmerking "mannen zijn gemaakt voor vrouwen en vrouwen voor mannen" bedoel je voor het huwelijk, maar op welke gronden je dat vindt weet ik niet, want je schrijft ook dat sommigen een homeseksuele relatie willen hebben een eigen keuze is.
Wat maakt dat het bevestigen van een relatie door middel van een huwelijk alleen voorbehouden is aan heteroseksuele paren?
Zelf Denken Samen Leven - Humanistisch Verbond
Die andere Timo
Lid
Berichten: 1176
Lid geworden op: 22 jun 2004, 11:40

Bericht door Die andere Timo »

Kwam dit tegen (nota bene in het imdb forum over "the passion of the Christ")

The offensive that Anti-Gay-Marriage people give are the following points.

#1
Their Point - Marriage is a religious institution, and the bible says gay sex is a sin.

My Counterpoint - Non-religious heterosexual marriages are legal. If gays don't marry through a church, mosque or synagogue, how does the "religious institution" apply?


#2
Their Point - Marriage has always been between a man and a woman. It's just tradition.

My Counterpoint - When has tradition ever dictated law? In a country where we have freedom of religion and expression, your traditions must never impose on the traditions of others, unless you can explain how their traditions are a violation of your personal rights.


#3
Their Point - Most people in the USA don't want gay marriage. Majority should rule.

My Counterpoints -

A- In the 1950's, about 75% of Americans opposed interracial marriage. Today, only 7% do. If there was a vote on it in 1950, would it have been right? Some would say that "blacks and whites are the same, but a woman and a man are different." In 1950, blacks and whites "weren't the same", so it's only a matter of time until gender doesn't matter anymore.

B- Most people in the USA don't want anchovies on their pizza. If the majority rules, does that mean those who like anchovies shouldn't be allowed to have them? Are either anchovies or gay-marriage creating any victims?


#4
Their Point - Gay Marriage would undermine the sanctity of Heterosexaul Marriages.

My Counterpoint - If gays could legally marry, would you get a divorce from your significant other? Would you feel less of a bond? I don't think so.


#5
Their Point - If we allow Gays to marry, what would stop a marriage in polygamy, incest or beastiality.

My Counterpoint - Nobody's asking for those other things. Even gays probably object to those. Just one person married to one person, regardless of gender. All you need is a law that says, "Two unrelated consenting adults can marry each other. Anything outside of that is prohibited." Besides, where's the logic behind this prediction? When's the last time you heard of a large movement to legalize marrying animals or blood relatives or multiple partners? I haven't heard any.


#6
Their Point - The word "marriage" is defined as a union of a man and a woman.

My Counterpoints -

A- That's one of it's definitions. It's not the only definition. The other definitions define it as a more general union or bonding. This can apply to anything. Besides, the dictionary changes all the time to keep up with the times. Recently we've invented Metrosexaul, Bling Bling, and Wardrobe Malfunction, and Homer Simpson's "D'OH!" in the dictionary.

B- Here's a thought. If you still believe that the definition of the word "Marriage" is locked as a man to woman union, let's say we just change the words "Gay Marriage" to "Gay YIPPEEEE!!!!"? That way, the word "Marriage" will continue to be a union between a man and a woman. If that's still not good enough for you to let gays have their identical legal union under the name "YIPPEEEE!!!!", then you shouldn't bother using the "definition of marriage" argument in the first place.

#7
Their Point - I just think homosexuality is just wrong.

My Counterpoint - To think it's wrong implies you believe homosexuality is a choice. There have been gays since the beginning of humanity. There are gays in every country. There are gay animals. (watch a nature program if you don't believe me.) The ratio for gays to straights has always been the same (1 in 20). You'll never hear a kid say, "How can I get beat up more?", or "I decided I want to be persecuted for no reason". People used to be born left handed and were considered "sinister" and were punished till they switched to their right hand. There were always left handed people in a ratio of 1 in 10 people. Today, most people have learned to accept that it's not just a choice. It comes naturally. Imagine there were probably people who said you can't marry a left-handed person. The only thing missing was a bible passage that said left-handedness is a sin. Why don't we also damn retards to hell for chosing to be stupid?

#8
Their Point - Gay couples don't bear children, and therefore don't contribute to society, so they don't need government benefits that we give to hetero married couples.

My Counterpoint - So if a heterosexual married couple doesn't have children, they should be annulled?


#9
Their Point - Statistics show kids raised by gay couples have worse results than those of hetero couples. They need a mother and a father.

My Counterpoint - Children are a seperate issue. First thing's first.

#10
Their Point - (and this is the stupidest one) Statistics show that there is a greater ratio of male-on-male child-molestation in relation to gays, than male-on-female child-molestation in relation to straights, therefore all gays are immoral.

My Counterpoint - All I need here is a few other statistical examples. There are more blacks than whites in prison. Are blacks all immoral? Should they be banned from marrying whites or each other? There are also more religious people in prison than agnostics and atheists. There are more christians in jail than any other religion. Does this mean that all religious people or christians are immoral? Of course not. So why use the same kind of statistic to condemn all gays? Besides, when they marry, why would they need to molest anyone? They get to have their daily dose of consentual nookie.

*********************************************************************
Want evidence of any of this stuff? Here's some fun links...

__________________________________________________
PART I:"The Pedophile and the Tumor that God Made"...(fairytale of choice versus nature)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/200 ... umor_x.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-new ... sts?page=8
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3077083/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/07/ ... 5420.shtml

__________________________________
PART II: Fox News, Education and Age...

Source#1
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/ ... 1828.shtml
The public seems to have become even less receptive toward gay marriage in the past seven months. Although a majority has always opposed gay marriage, last July, 40% said they would favor allowing homosexual couples to legally marry, as did 34% in December. That figure is now 30%.
Republicans, conservatives, and people in the South are the most likely to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage - about three-quarters of each group does. Majorities of Democrats, Independents, moderates, those without a college degree, and those in the Midwestern and Western regions also favor a marriage amendment.
Opponents of the constitutional amendment include liberals (62%) and those who have a college degree or higher education (51%). Northeasterners are slightly more likely to oppose the amendment than support it, 49% to 45%. Young Americans under age 30 are more likely than older people to oppose the amendment, but a majority of them still favors it.


Source#2
CU poll: Gay marriage supporters tend to be young, educated and watch CNN
http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/0 ... _poll.html
By Blaine P. Friedlander Jr.
"As gay couples rush to the altar and the White House backs a constitutional amendment prohibiting same-sex marriages, a poll by some Cornell researchers shows that voters who favor gay marriage tend to be young, educated and earn a comfortable living. And they tend to watch CNN.
Voters who oppose gay marriage tend to be older, less educated and not as wealthy, and to vote Republican, according to the poll. And they tend to watch Fox News. ...
...The poll showed that women (29 percent of those surveyed) tended to support gay marriage more often than men (22 percent), and there was more support for same-sex marriage among those with college backgrounds and graduate degrees. About 13 percent of high school-educated people supported gay marriage, compared with people with some college education (28 percent) or a graduate degree (38 percent).
Only about 18.4 percent of voters over 56 years old lent their support to gay marriage, while those 35 years old or younger were more likely to support it (35 percent). About 28 percent of voters ages 36 to 55 indicated they were in favor of gay marriage. "

Source#3
http://www.eagletribune.com/news/storie ... FP_002.htm
But those who said religion was very important in their lives were far less likely to support gay marriage -- only 20 percent. That compares to 58 percent of those who said religion was not very important.
Of the 57 people who said they were either atheist or agnostic, 59 percent said they support gay marriage.
Democrats were more likely to support gay marriage than Republicans -- 39 percent to 19 percent. Republicans were more likely than Democrats to oppose any legal recognition -- 26 percent to 14 percent.
Just over half of the respondents ages 18 to 34 supported gay marriage, compared to 31 percent of those age 35 to 44 and 29 percent of people 45 to 54 years old. Support for gay marriage dropped to 22 percent among those 55 or older.
Just 14 percent of people who did not finish high school supported gay marriage, compared to 25 percent of high school graduates and 44 percent of those with advanced college degrees.

Source#4
Voters who say they go to church every week usually vote for Republicans. Those who go to church less often or not at all tend to vote Democratic.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=s ... ngpatterns
Forget the gender gap. The "religion gap" is bigger, more powerful and growing. The divide isn't between Catholics and Protestants, Jews and Gentiles. Instead, on one side are those of many faiths who go to services, well, religiously: Catholics who attend Mass without fail, evangelical Christians and mainline Protestants who show up for church rain or shine, some Orthodox Jews. On the other side are those who attend religious services only occasionally or never.
The religion gap is the leading edge of the "culture war" that has polarized American politics, reshaped the coalitions that make up the Democratic and Republican parties and influenced the appeals their presidential candidates are making. The debate over same-sex marriage is expected to make it wider than ever this year. Gay rights, partial-birth abortion, definitions of patriotism and other "values" issues are likely to exacerbate the divide between the most observant and others.
Republicans target the most faithful for political conversion so aggressively that critics say they skirt the law. At the White House, President Bush (news - web sites) has courted people of faith with his policies and language. They are a huge group: In 2000, one in four voters said they attended church every week.

_________________________________
PART III: Age, Location, Party and the Future...

CBS News Poll. May 20-23, 2004. Nationwide:
"Which comes closest to your view? Gay couples should be allowed to legally marry. OR, Gay couples should be allowed to form civil unions but not legally marry. OR There should be no legal recognition of a gay couple's relationship." N=1,113 adults, MoE ¡À 3 (for all adults)

Legal Marriage% - Civil Unions% - No Legal Recognition%

ALL: 28% - 29% - 40%
Republicans: 13% - 33% - 53%
Democrats: 32% - 28% - 36%
Independents: 37% - 27% - 33%
18-29 years: 43% - 32% - 25%
30-44 years: 29% - 25% - 44%
45-64 years: 26% - 29% - 41%
65 & older: 12% - 32% - 51%
Northeast: 35% - 31% - 33%
Midwest: 26% - 23% - 47%
South: 23% - 26% - 48%
West: 31% - 36% - 28%

My prediction is that in 10 to 50 years, Gay marriage will be legal, and it will be as accepted as interracial marriage and the abolishing of segregation. The younger generations are more accepting of gays, and the oldest generation never had a chance to understand. Can't teach an old dog new tricks.
In the 1950's, about 75% of Americans objected to interracial marriage. Today, only 7% object to it. Imagine if it was put to a vote back then. Would it have been right? Some say, "A black man and a white man are the same, and a man and a woman are not." Imagine if you went back to 1950. Say that sentence to someone from that time. Would they agree with you that a black and white are the same?
According to THIS poll, only 40% of Americans as a whole object to gays having any sort of legal recognition. That means 60% are willing to let them be together in some form. I think in about 50 years, only 15% of Americans will object to gay marriage, even if they are appalled by the idea of having sex with the same gender.

"There is no such thing as right and wrong, there's just popular opinion." -Jeffrey Goines
En Vincent zag het koren
En Einstein het getal
En Zappelin de zappelin
En Johan zag de bal
Jurryt
Lid
Berichten: 2488
Lid geworden op: 02 jul 2004, 01:24

Bericht door Jurryt »

kdenk dat het wel einde discussie is ;)
Voor zover berekend:

34% is tegen
66% is voor

persoonlijk valt het me wat tegen, maar dat mag ;)
Gebruikersavatar
paulstolk
Lid
Berichten: 711
Lid geworden op: 05 nov 2003, 21:19
Locatie: Ede, gelderland
Contacteer:

Bericht door paulstolk »

ik ben tegen het huwelijk sowieso.. mag dat ook? :P
Leeghoofdigheid ter bestrijding van het maken van domme beslissingen
Gebruikersavatar
Dodo
Lid
Berichten: 6247
Lid geworden op: 20 jun 2004, 11:52
Locatie: Den Haag

Bericht door Dodo »

paulstolk schreef:ik ben tegen het huwelijk sowieso.. mag dat ook? :P
uit principes :bonk: :P

t mag wel, maar waarom?
"However, the German infantry halted abruptly after finding and drinking a large cache of kirsch liquor in a garage along the route"
The Lorraine offensive 1944
Jurryt
Lid
Berichten: 2488
Lid geworden op: 02 jul 2004, 01:24

Bericht door Jurryt »

Hij heeft zelf geen vriendin :P en misschien vind hij het te duur :P en misschien vind hij het eeuwig gebonden zijn maar niets :D
Gesloten