Second EU Nation Moves To Ban Gay Marriage

whob, you amaze me with your typical gay=animalf***er arguement.

whether it's genetic or a product of environment, people are gay. they dont choose to be gay.

we are talking about a mutually consentual civil union between two human beings who may or may not intend to raise a family. they feel they are entitled to the same protections and benefits as any other two people who are in love and intend to live out their lives together.

somehow you manage to connect this with f***ing a corpse, simply because you find the act of being gay disgusting. well thats fine. as i always say, i find the idea of fat ugly people f***ing to be disgusting, but shall we equate them to necropheliacs as well and not allow them to marry?

ok, now its time for the "ITS NOT NATURAL" argument and then we merge with the endless clusterf*** that is the "homosexuality chosen or genetic" thread.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Of course not, since it is required that the person or horse agrees...possesion does not do that.

Depends on how you classify the term "agreement." If a man has lived and had sexual relations with animal for many years..and each time the man sets the animal free, the animal then decides to come back to him, could that then be considered as an agreement between the two parties?

No, and you know it, and basic common sense knows it.

These ridiculous examples are just a waste of time, whob.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Depends on how you classify the term "agreement." If a man has lived and had sexual relations with animal for many years..and each time the man sets the animal free, the animal then decides to come back to him, could that then be considered as an agreement between the two parties?

Well basically ..NO. But that's not the point. The Law is just for human/human relationships..so there won't be that problem.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well basically ..NO. But that's not the point. The Law is just for human/human relationships..so there won't be that problem.

living human/living human you mean 🙄

Well in a society where same sex partners cannot get the same treatment as heterosexual partners changing the law in the USA is going to be scrutinized and probably abused to some extent with what whob has said as disturbing as that may seem.

Originally posted by soleran30
Well in a society where same sex partners cannot get the same treatment as heterosexual partners changing the law in the USA is going to be scrutinized and probably abused to some extent with what whob has said as disturbing as that may seem.

um how?

how is it possible for a homosexual couple to abuse the system in a way which is unique from the way in which many heterosexual couples abuse the system?

Originally posted by PVS
living human/living human you mean 🙄

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No, and you know it, and basic common sense knows it.

These ridiculous examples are just a waste of time, whob.

Okay..obviously the "evolutionary" gap between man quadrapedal animals is to large, how about between a man and an ape. Many apes are intelligent enough..to communicate using limited sign language...corrrect? So would a union between a man and say a female gorilla be acceptable..if of course..the female gorilla agreed to such a union? After all..men and apes are of the same family..correct?

Originally posted by PVS
living human/living human you mean 🙄

Originally posted by PVS
um how?

how is it possible for a homosexual couple to abuse the system in a way which is unique from the way in which many heterosexual couples abuse the system?

this just comes down to how the laws are defined and executed. Right now there aren't the laws in place for say health coverage of same sex partners............just one example. So the laws have to be defined as to what is acceptable to the society at the moment. So does that mean in 50 years who's to say humans don't have the right to put their animals on their health coverage.

Clearly this is a radical piece here however anyone that has lived for awhile knows there will be some whack jobs that feel its their right for this to happen. So we just need to be clear and define what unions are acceptable (very very clearly cuz attornies love to spin words in the law) and make sure there is an overhaul of current laws to protect the proper live human/live human piece.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Okay..obviously the "evolutionary" gap between man quadrapedal animals is to large, how about between a man and an ape. Many apes are intelligent enough..to communicate using limited sign language...corrrect? So would a union between a man and say a female gorilla be acceptable..if of course..the female gorilla agreed to such a union? After all..men and apes are of the same family..correct?

Ok let e ask you that again..is an ape a human? If the answer is no.....then NO

Originally posted by Sir Whirlysplat
(Vilnius) Lithuania could become the second member of the European Union to ban same-sex marriage.

Irena Degutiene, a member of the conservative Homeland Union Party announced Monday she will begin collecting signatures in January to force the issue to a vote.

Lithuanian law already defines marriage as as union between a man and woman but Degutiene said that isn't enough. She said that Latvia did the right thing last week when it amended its constitution to bar gay marriage.

Degutiene's move has raised concerns by liberal members of Parliament who say it would only alienate the country from the rest of Europe.

Gay activists in Lithuania say they will fight the proposal.

Earlier this month Latvia's Parliament passed a constitutional amendment making the country the only member of the European Union to ban gay marriage in its constitution. (story) The measure was signed last week by President Vaira Vike-Freiberga. (story)

The actions in Latvia and Lithuania are part of a growing divide between former Communist states and the rest of Europe.

The EU has moved to rein-in Poland. In October the European Commission warned Poland that if it continues to oppose gay rights the country risks losing its voting rights in the EU. (story)

Last month Polish gays and lesbians demonstrated in several cities demanding that the government abide by European civil rights laws.

The marchers denounced the mass arrest of gays in the city of Poznan, (story) where riot police detailed 65 gays and lesbians who refused to disband when they attempted to hold a gay pride march.

©365Gay.com 2005

Europeans doing something right for a change?

*checks weather in hell* Yep..its snowing.

Originally posted by soleran30
this just comes down to how the laws are defined and executed. Right now there aren't the laws in place for say health coverage of same sex partners............just one example. So the laws have to be defined as to what is acceptable to the society at the moment. So does that mean in 50 years who's to say humans don't have the right to put their animals on their health coverage.

Clearly this is a radical piece here however anyone that has lived for awhile knows there will be some whack jobs that feel its their right for this to happen. So we just need to be clear and define what unions are acceptable (very very clearly cuz attornies love to spin words in the law) and make sure there is an overhaul of current laws to protect the proper live human/live human piece.

there are laws set firmly in place that not only is bestiality NOT a "life choice" but in fact a crime which is easily punishable by imprisonment for cruelty and rape of an animal.

you seem to argue that gays should not be permitted benefits because some people would see that as a green light to screw a dog? well fine if they do, but if and when they get caught they will be punished, as it was, is and always will be. your leap in logic is without any base other than your own prejudice.
by your very logic, the green light is already given for people to marry animals, so long as they are of opposite sex. makes no sense? well neither does your statement.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ok let e ask you that again..is an ape a human? If the answer is no.....then NO

There is no distincition between man and any other animal. Man is just an evolved primate..correct? Some primates are just more "evolved" than others..but we're all still "animals" none the less. Why is it when certain terminology is used...man somehow begins to indentify himself in a different category..than that category which classifies him as an animal?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Their is no distincition between man and any other animal. Man is just an evolved primate..correct? Some primates are just more "evolved" than others..but we're all still "animals" none the less. Why is it when certain terminology is used...man somehow begins to indentify himself in a different category..than that category which classifies him as an animal?

Of course we are all animals. But there are different species. And the marrying would only be in between members of the same species...Human in this case.

So dogs mary dogs, cats arry cats, and apes (although being primates) marry apes....

Originally posted by PVS
there are laws set firmly in place that not only is bestiality NOT a "life choice" but in fact a crime which is easily punishable by imprisonment for cruelty and rape of an animal.

you seem to argue that gays should not be permitted benefits because some people would see that as a green light to screw a dog? well fine if they do, but if and when they get caught they will be punished, as it was, is and always will be. your leap in logic is without any base other than your own prejudice.
by your very logic, the green light is already given for people to marry animals, so long as they are of opposite sex. makes no sense? well neither does your statement.

uh huh so if you would have read my posts you would know that I don't care if there are same sex unions only that they be defined by the law and not favoribly treated over hetero relationships. My point was that there are SO MANY laws in effect that affect the benefits of hetero marriages there will be loopholes there will be abusers of the system. Not to have sex with your dog and call them your life partner.

Originally posted by soleran30
uh huh so if you would have read my posts you would know that I don't care if there are same sex unions only that they be defined by the law and not favoribly treated over hetero relationships.

makes sense. but who is asking for special privileges? nobody 😬

Originally posted by soleran30
My point was that there are SO MANY laws in effect that affect the benefits of hetero marriages there will be loopholes there will be abusers of the system. Not to have sex with your dog and call them your life partner.

the only loophole is in your mind.
you have nothing to back it up, and dispite your
disclaimer on not being against gay marrage, i cant
help but smell a rat when you equate such an allowance with
corruption of morality which would lead to marrying your pet.

however, off topic point...wouldnt it be awesome if you could include your pets on your insurance plan?

yeah anyway we have an antiqueted system of laws that regardless of our intent has so many loopholes and backlogs that adding new laws kinda stinks because it would seem lawyers are that much better at putting in double talk to allow for loopholes.

and there are TONS of tax laws that discriminate against same sex couples.

I am not even thinking of morality on same sex unions just posing questions that may come up much much farther down the line. You may think its assinine but hell there was a black man lynched and hung in the town square in/around 1915! Crazy so there is nothing wrong with the question when you look back at how people grow and change viewpoints.

Originally posted by soleran30
yeah anyway we have an antiqueted system of laws that regardless of our intent has so many loopholes and backlogs that adding new laws kinda stinks because it would seem lawyers are that much better at putting in double talk to allow for loopholes.

and there are TONS of tax laws that discriminate against same sex couples.

I am not even thinking of morality on same sex unions just posing questions that may come up much much farther down the line. You may think its assinine but hell there was a black man lynched and hung in the town square in/around 1915! Crazy so there is nothing wrong with the question when you look back at how people grow and change viewpoints.

again i see no connection.

you make a point that laws are corruptable. well yes they are. but again, how is this concept exclusively applicable to homosexual civil unions?

are you saying caution should be taken in defining such a law? well of coarse, as with any law.