Do you support gay marriage?

[Apollonaris]

Clint Eastwood: ‘I don’t give a f*ck’ if gays marry

By David Edwards
Wednesday, September 14th, 2011 -- 9:36 am

Don't expect to see him marching in a Pride parade anytime soon, but gays may have found an unexpected ally in Oscar-winning director Clint Eastwood.

In the October issue of GQ magazine, Eastwood said that Republicans were making a big mistake by opposing same sex marriage.

"These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage?" Eastwood opined. "I don't give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We're making a big deal out of things we shouldn't be making a deal out of."

"They go on and on with all this bullshit about 'sanctity' -- don't give me that sanctity crap! Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want."

Although he is a registered Republican, Eastwood doesn't consider himself a conservative. He has supported California's former Democratic Gov. Gray Davis and Democratic Rep. Sam Farr.

"I was an Eisenhower Republican when I started out at 21, because he promised to get us out of the Korean War," he told GQ. "And over the years, I realized there was a Republican philosophy that I liked. And then they lost it. And libertarians had more of it. Because what I really believe is, let's spend a little more time leaving everybody alone."

[Hevneren]

It is not a strawman. Are you intolerant to relationships between animals and humans? Or between humans with extreme age differences? You know... maybe they have feelings for each other just like gay people.

I don't know what planet you're on, but here on Earth animals and humans can't communicate with each other, and no duck or pig or horse can ask to marry a human, nor do they have a concept of what marriage is. Your strawman remains a strawman.

Well, if an adult animal doesn't react violently when an adult human attempts to sodomize it then we can say it is indeed consensual. Likewise if, let's say: a 13 years old girl feels really horny and attracted to an older man (28 or so) it could also be consensual despite it's statutory rape under certain laws. But homosexual (marriage) is as well forbidden under many jurisdiction. Checkmate. up

No, your strawman doesn't hold up. I think you understand the difference between two consenting adults getting married, and a duck and a human or child and adult getting married, you just make up ridiculous strawmen to justify your bigotry.

First of all, the subject matter here is marriage and not sex. The two are not mutually intelligeble. They have clear, separate definitions. While just about anyone is capable of having sex with just about anyone else, not everyone is capable of getting married and understanding the legal and symbolic definitions of marriage. Shifting the topic from marriage to sex does nothing to validate your bigotry against gay marriage. Nice try though.

Second of all, I would like you to show me the 13 year-old girl who fully understands what sexuality means and what consequences it has, and who fully understand what marriage entails. I'd also like you to tell me why a 13 year-old girl should be held equally or more responsible for sex that involves a grown man.

Third of all, I would like you to tell me why a fully grown man who has sex with little girls, is comparable to two adult, consenting gay men or gay women who want to show their love and commitment to each other by marrying. A man who chooses to have sex with a little girl, whether she resisted or not, is a potential danger to children. What danger do two consenting adult gay people pose in marrying each other out of love and commitment?

If you give an union on paper between two perverted people of deviant sexual behavior why don't give an union on paper to bestial people who wish to marry animals?? It really is not very different to me. Maybe if I was gay I would think different because you know; I'd be engaging in that kind of buggery and would need a way to justify it because despite being a fag I would know I am doing something wrong, just like you do.

Because these consenting adult gay couples aren't hurting anyone else by marrying, while child molesters and animal molesters hurt children and animals by molesting and raping them. Rape, by the way, isn't just about force. The scenario you gave about the man having sex with a 13 year-old, could easily involve manipulation and threats, and the girl could've been told by the man that if she doesn't have sex with him she's abnormal or doing something wrong. You don't understand the grasp that abusers can have on those they abuse.

[Turkey]

hevneren buggered up his reply to this so I'm redoing it for him. No need to thank me hevneren....

It is not a strawman. Are you intolerant to relationships between animals and humans? Or between humans with extreme age differences? You know... maybe they have feelings for each other just like gay people.

yes. why can't a man marry a dog?

Well, if an adult animal doesn't react violently when an adult human attempts to sodomize it then we can say it is indeed consensual.

no means yes!

Likewise if, let's say: a 13 years old girl feels really horny and attracted to an older man (28 or so) it could also be consensual despite it's statutory rape under certain laws.

ah mexico. sensible people.

But homosexual (marriage) is as well forbidden under many jurisdiction. Checkmate. up

If you give an union on paper between two perverted people of deviant sexual behavior why don't give an union on paper to bestial people who wish to marry animals??

good point. Let's get this through legistration.

It really is not very different to me. Maybe if I was gay I would think different because you know; I'd be engaging in that kind of buggery and would need a way to justify it because despite being a fag I would know I am doing something wrong, just like you do.

this is a very good point. At least have the decency to feel ashamed of it. There's nothing wrong with buggery, but gay pride is wrong. the mainstream will never accept it and what is there to b proud of? Is it exceptionally difficult?

[Han Cholo]

I don't know what planet you're on, but here on Earth animals and humans can't communicate with each other, and no duck or pig or horse can ask to marry a human, nor do they have a concept of what marriage is. Your strawman remains a strawman.

They can't? It would be like me saying fags can't communicate. Of course humans can communicate with animals, just not verbally. But remember not all comunication is verbal. Do you really think you don't communicate with your pets such as dogs, etc? This is no strawman. You're just getting anxious I confront your homophilia.

No, your strawman doesn't hold up. I think you understand the difference between two consenting adults getting married, and a duck and a human or child and adult getting married, you just make up ridiculous strawmen to justify your bigotry.

Marriage is for the opposite sexes. Homos commiting buggery and wanting to legalize it on a paper is not a valid reason for marriage. It's an devian, abherrant behaviour and should be treated as such. They don't deserve such special treatment to bend over long established laws to justify their sodomy acts. They can keep practicising them, but why the hell conceed them marriage? Homosexuality is a perversion and not a normal behavior, despite whatever liberal propaganda has brainwashed you.

First of all, the subject matter here is marriage and not sex. The two are not mutually intelligeble. They have clear, separate definitions. While just about anyone is capable of having sex with just about anyone else, not everyone is capable of getting married and understanding the legal and symbolic definitions of marriage. Shifting the topic from marriage to sex does nothing to validate your bigotry against gay marriage. Nice try though.

Exactly.. The problem is marriage. Marriage is the definition of an union to create a family. If there is not this, the children born out of wedlock would be bastards. But this is completely out of context in gay marriage. Homos can't have children. Homos can't form a family despite some derranged governments are allowing them to adopt kids. This is more acts of the liberal "tolerance" propaganda that has affected your brain. Remember the meaning of tolerance is just not distinguishing the good from the evil; just like Norse Sword's signature says.

Second of all, I would like you to show me the 13 year-old girl who fully understands what sexuality means and what consequences it has, and who fully understand what marriage entails. I'd also like you to tell me why a 13 year-old girl should be held equally or more responsible for sex that involves a grown man.

You're going besides the point. I don't support 13 years old marrying. And I don't support fags marrying either.

Third of all, I would like you to tell me why a fully grown man who has sex with little girls, is comparable to two adult, consenting gay men or gay women who want to show their love and commitment to each other by marrying. A man who chooses to have sex with a little girl, whether she resisted or not, is a potential danger to children. What danger do two consenting adult gay people pose in marrying each other out of love and commitment?

What about if the fully grown man and the little girl just love themselves and are consenting about it? "You're very intolerant and paedophilophobic!!!" "They love themselves and want to legalize their love!!". Checkmate again. You're forgetting that despite homosexuals don't individually harm anyone, gay acceptance indeed is a danger to society.

Because these consenting adult gay couples aren't hurting anyone else by marrying, while child molesters and animal molesters hurt children and animals by molesting and raping them. Rape, by the way, isn't just about force. The scenario you gave about the man having sex with a 13 year-old, could easily involve manipulation and threats, and the girl could've been told by the man that if she doesn't have sex with him she's abnormal or doing something wrong. You don't understand the grasp that abusers can have on those they abuse.

If you really think having sex with a 13 years old or with a sheep is wrong then at least you should be consistent and accept faggotry is wrong as well. The three are all abherrant, sodomite sexual behavior.

[Joe McCarthy]

Voted no. I also oppose triad marriages, and I dare say that if one favors 'gay marriage' on the basis of 'choice', any other 'marriage' involving consenting adults should be favored too.

Beyond that, marriage confers legitimacy and the nature of homosexuality (overrepresentative healthcare costs, low life expectancy, high suicide rate, etc) is not something we should be encouraging with state sanction.

[Fortis in Arduis]

Goodbye homophobia,

hello civil partnerships.


Old Gay:

• Socially excluded
• Ghettoised
• Criminalised
• Demonised
• Ostracised
• Estranged from family

New Gay:

• Socially included
• Supported by and supporting their families
• Productive citizens
• Substantially wealthy and philanthropic
• Full access to all professions

Homophobes, you lost.

[Monolith]

Yeah, you evil homophobes!

[Fortis in Arduis]

Look, this is a politically and ethnically aware forum, you know, fairly conservative, yet, the anti-party is only just over 50%.

That could be because of religious objection to gay marriage (which is perfectly understandable, some of my best friends are Roman Catholics, haha...) rather than the more polite civil partnership option which should not offend religious sensibilities.

Looking that those stats, it would seem that the 'phobes have lost, and looking at the pics of the 'phobes, you all look like the twats you are.

I might start a thread about 'phobes, like the anti-Spanish thread.

[Apollonaris]

They can't? It would be like me saying fags can't communicate. Of course humans can communicate with animals, just not verbally. But remember not all comunication is verbal. Do you really think you don't communicate with your pets such as dogs, etc? This is no strawman. You're just getting anxious I confront your homophilia.

Marriage is a social institution which requires consent. Animals cannot consent. Therefore, a human cannot marry an animal. Your argument is stupid.

Marriage is for the opposite sexes. Homos commiting buggery and wanting to legalize it on a paper is not a valid reason for marriage.

Who defines that marriage is "for opposite sexes"? Who defines what a "valid reason for marriage" is?

It's an devian, abherrant behaviour and should be treated as such.

If you have evidence that homosexuality is a "deviant" and "abhorrent behavior" then please share it with the rest of us.

They don't deserve such special treatment to bend over long established laws to justify their sodomy acts. They can keep practicising them, but why the hell conceed them marriage?

Marriage equality is not "special treatment". Gays and lesbians desire only that the laws be applied equally to all citizens.

Homosexuality is a perversion and not a normal behavior, despite whatever liberal propaganda has brainwashed you.

Who decides what a perversion is and what normal or abnormal is? If you have evidence of this so-called "brainwashing" and "propaganda", then please share it with everyone.

Exactly.. The problem is marriage. Marriage is the definition of an union to create a family.

Who defines marriage as a "union to create a family"?

If there is not this, the children born out of wedlock would be bastards. But this is completely out of context in gay marriage. Homos can't have children. Homos can't form a family despite some derranged governments are allowing them to adopt kids. This is more acts of the liberal "tolerance" propaganda that has affected your brain. Remember the meaning of tolerance is just not distinguishing the good from the evil; just like Norse Sword's signature says.

Homosexuals can form families and they can have children. You're confused. The meaning of tolerance is permitting a thing of which one disapproves. If you have evidence that homosexuals are "evil" then please share it with the rest of us.

You're going besides the point. I don't support 13 years old marrying. And I don't support fags marrying either.

What about if the fully grown man and the little girl just love themselves and are consenting about it? "You're very intolerant and paedophilophobic!!!" "They love themselves and want to legalize their love!!". Checkmate again. You're forgetting that despite homosexuals don't individually harm anyone, gay acceptance indeed is a danger to society.

If you really think having sex with a 13 years old or with a sheep is wrong then at least you should be consistent and accept faggotry is wrong as well. The three are all abherrant, sodomite sexual behavior.

Thirteen year olds cannot legally consent. Only adults can legally consent to marry. Therefore your argument is irrelevant.

Pedophilia and homosexuality are not equivalent. You don't know what you're talking about.

If you have evidence to prove your assertion that acceptance of homosexuality is "a danger to society" than please present it.

[007]

Who defines that marriage is "for opposite sexes"? Who defines what a "valid reason for marriage" is?

Marriage equality is not "special treatment". Gays and lesbians desire only that the laws be applied equally to all citizens.


Who defines marriage as a "union to create a family"?



Homosexuals can form families and they can have children.

Not from homosexual sex they can't. Marriage is between a man and a woman to create a family for the rearing of children by definition.
Changing the definition of the word marriage to apply to homosexuals is special treatment, not equality. They already have the same rights as anybody else to get married but they don't want to get married to a member of the opposite sex. They want to do something else and call it marriage.