09-09-2005, 07:30 PM #1
Swedish feminist partys latest suggestion
They want to get rid of marridges TOTALY and replace it with just a legal union kind of law thing that people can get into.
But basicly as I understand it they dont want people to be able to be married in church ect. They claim marridge is a sign of the man owning the women not a sign of a loving bond betwen a man and a woman.
and to belive those c*nts(no offence to women but these ARE c*nts) can even get into the newspaper with those ridicilous ideas!
09-09-2005, 07:33 PM #2
I dont even know why they are pushing this because it just seems like they want the terms husband and wife erased but legaly everything would be just like married anyway.
The femnazi strikes again.
09-09-2005, 07:38 PM #3Originally Posted by johan
09-09-2005, 07:39 PM #4
they also want more then 2 people to be able to comit to that legal bond btw. I can se this scenario in school "so little steve what do your mom and dad do" and all the kid answere is "do you mean steve, bob, mary, alice or hugo"
09-09-2005, 07:40 PM #5Originally Posted by MASTERDBOL
lol I dont mean I dont think gays should be able to marry. But allowing more then 2 to marry and getting rid of the whole marridge process that many cherris that is stupid.
09-09-2005, 07:40 PM #6Originally Posted by johan
09-09-2005, 07:42 PM #7
you know johan......you and i should have our own political discussion forum. what do you think? i went to a very liberal university in southern california (us liberal), and was one of the only conservative republican in my political science classes (which i majored in). so i love these topics.
09-09-2005, 07:45 PM #8
I wouldnt have a problem if the gays and multi partners could get into that legal bond but leave classical marridge the way it is. That IMO shouldnt piss of the church in anyway and would still let gays marry and let the multi partner freaks marry aswell.
I think you and me agree on alot except just this gay topic so the forum would be quite boring
09-09-2005, 07:47 PM #9
Even though I dont care for marrying I understand that its a very special and "holy" moment for many. Getting rid of it to please some man hating bitches aint a good enough reason for me
09-09-2005, 07:50 PM #10
ohh btw I wouldnt want any gay couple or any multi partner wierdness to be able to adopt either. Not because I think the kid would get a bad situation at home. But simply because the risk of them getting teased and bullied would be to big.
Just the backside of human nature and something we have to come to terms with before allowing those things.
09-09-2005, 07:51 PM #11Originally Posted by johan
09-09-2005, 07:53 PM #12Originally Posted by johan
09-09-2005, 07:54 PM #13Originally Posted by johan
09-09-2005, 08:00 PM #14Originally Posted by MASTERDBOL
well I missunderstod what you meant with "our children" I though you meant it would negativly impact children in society in general.
I for sure agree that it effects children in those particular familys negatively. Im sure they could be just as loving as any regular couple but the other kids would be to ruthless.
But a childless gay couple wouldnt have a negative effect on any child imo.
There is ALOT of people I wouldnt want to se be allowed to raise children. Alcoholics, junkies, fat asses that stuff there kids with candy to shut them up ect....in those situations it isnt about personal freedom anymore its about what is best for the kid:
09-09-2005, 08:01 PM #15Originally Posted by MASTERDBOL
09-09-2005, 10:41 PM #16Originally Posted by johan
IMHO, there's no legitimate role for religious organizations to affect the legal standing of citizens. Why should a preacher have the legal capacity to change the standing of 2 people in the eyes of the law? If a preacher can pronounce 2 people married, why can't they pronounce them divorced? If a preacher can pronounce 2 people married, why not 3 or 4, if that's what the church beleives?
Nah, it's best to keep anything that changes the legal relationship between people in the hands of the civil authorities. After that, if someone wants to go through a religious ceremony with holy water or hand-binding or hot steamy mud huts, that should be their option.
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)