Catholics Protesting Against Gay Marriage?

[mannyamador]

this is exactly my point. for the state to recognize same *** union. para ang mga gay couples naay mga rights/benefits like other heterosexual couples.

If the state does that for homosexual couples, then it should do the same for other types of "unions". The reasoning is the same. These other types of couples have "rights" too.

So the state will have to recognize incestuous unions, bestial unions, man-to-anything and woman-to-anything, unions, etc. I think that will destroy the meaning of marriage and reduce it to a mere state-approved :relationship" based on sexual preference.

Heterosexual marriage is not merely based on sexual preference. It is a biological/social necessity. No other relationship is required for the continued existence of humanity -- except for heterosexual ones.

[erwin_rommel]

If the state does that for homosexual couples, then it should do the same for other types of "unions". The reasoning is the same. These other types of couples have "rights" too.

So the state will have to recognize incestuous unions, bestial unions, man-to-anything and woman-to-anything, unions, etc. I think that will destroy the meaning of marriage and reduce it to a mere state-approved :relationship" based on sexual preference.

Heterosexual marriage is not merely based on sexual preference. It is a biological/social necessity. No other relationship is required for the continued existence of humanity -- except for heterosexual ones.

agree ko ani!

[sirius]

Ellen DeGeneres and Fiancee Portia De Rossi to Wed Saturday

just wanna post this, saw this on yahoo

[ieuseerm]

nganong maminyu man lagi nang duha ka taw nga down syndrome nga unta ang lalaki kay sterile man? duha o tulo lang ka recorded cases gud ang nahibaw-an nga makapaanak ang lalaki nga down syndrome, so halos tanan jud nila sterile. so asa man ana ang biological necessity nila?

It is a biological/social necessity. No other relationship is required for the continued existence of humanity -- except for heterosexual ones.

[ieuseerm]

klaro baya ang rules ngari sa istorya nga magrespetar sa isigkausa sa mga members, apan ang uban laging taw diri kay gikalimtan na ang rules.

[jaymanalofever]

If the state does that for homosexual couples, then it should do the same for other types of "unions". The reasoning is the same. These other types of couples have "rights" too.

So the state will have to recognize incestuous unions, bestial unions, man-to-anything and woman-to-anything, unions, etc. I think that will destroy the meaning of marriage and reduce it to a mere state-approved :relationship" based on sexual preference.

Heterosexual marriage is not merely based on sexual preference. It is a biological/social necessity. No other relationship is required for the continued existence of humanity -- except for heterosexual ones.

Hi I'm new here. Manny is a good guy. I had *** with him several times. Ni sucker

[rAnzter]

Its ok relationship nalang na sila uy.... Grabeh napud kung mag marriage pajud... nga against na baya nag simbahan ana....

so dili jud mo pwede sa simbahan if ever.... and that decision is final....

like my tito nga priest said... "Priest are not against Gay or lesbian people... what they are against of is what they do...."

kasabot naman tingali mo ana..... sad to say.. and no offense... Kana nalang daan mga gays nga mag su-ot ug pina sexy nga outfits in short girly trends...

Dili jud na respeto-on kasagaran...

[laagan_si_organizer]

Hi I'm new here. Manny is a good guy. I had *** with him several times. Ni sucker

that's not how you win a debate...neither winning your respect. putting someone in a humiliating situation makes you an example of how bad really gays are, which i strongly attest.

being a gay, myself, is already content with having a relationship with someone of the same ***. marriage is a different issue. it would not guarantee 100 percent fulfillment and satisfaction in a same-*** relationship. the union of two people, be it heterosexual or homosexual, doesn't guarantee eternal happiness. what's the point of marrying of you can't stop being polygamous? still, pointless.

my cries for being a consistent poster is for people to stop discriminating us. respect begets respect...you want your respect then give some. for me, i don't tolerate people who don't respect me at all, whether they are "of my kind" or not. i should say it has nothing to do with what i wear everyday, be it a long dress, a mini skirt, or a skimpy short...when you respect people for how they are, then you get the same respect from them.

[zney25]

that's not how you win a debate...neither winning your respect. putting someone in a humiliating situation makes you an example of how bad really gays are, which i strongly attest.

being a gay, myself, is already content with having a relationship with someone of the same ***. marriage is a different issue. it would not guarantee 100 percent fulfillment and satisfaction in a same-*** relationship. the union of two people, be it heterosexual or homosexual, doesn't guarantee eternal happiness. what's the point of marrying of you can't stop being polygamous? still, pointless.

my cries for being a consistent poster is for people to stop discriminating us. respect begets respect...you want your respect then give some. for me, i don't tolerate people who don't respect me at all, whether they are "of my kind" or not. i should say it has nothing to do with what i wear everyday, be it a long dress, a mini skirt, or a skimpy short...when you respect people for how they are, then you get the same respect from them.

well said sis......

[mogul]

nganong maminyu man lagi nang duha ka taw nga down syndrome nga unta ang lalaki kay sterile man? duha o tulo lang ka recorded cases gud ang nahibaw-an nga makapaanak ang lalaki nga down syndrome, so halos tanan jud nila sterile. so asa man ana ang biological necessity nila?

bai for marriages it doesn't end in the ability for childbearing and childrearing. For catholics and other religions which respect this sacred ceremony, that's just a big part of it. And with todays technology, it won't be long that hetero sterile couples can still have offsprings despite their being sterile. count on it.

The biggest danger homosexual marriage presents is forcing into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the we must recognize a marriage of two men/women simply because they love one another, upon what basis can it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

marriage is not just about love, its more than that. get that through your heads.