Conquer Club

Napoleon Ier wrote:Why should we allow gays to marry though? CivilUnion, sure why the h*ck not, but Marriage? No! That is for heterosexual couples who could potentially have/adopt a kid and deserve these social advantages.

I am not trying to be condescending or insulting in any way, but would you please explain to me why marriage is only for heterosexuals and has child rearing implications?

Snorri1234 wrote:

jiminski wrote:Calm down there Snorri, did you read my post or are you too busy trying to swat the bee in your bonnet?

I was quite calm in my response.

If there is blood involved then disease is more likely be passed and to mutate.

I know, but that's not even what this thread is about. It's about gay couples wanting to marry each other. And really who cares if they marry and give each other diseases?

in order to correctly argue we must try to understand the counter arguments 'logic'.
Whether we agree or not i would say that they are logical arguments.

They are not logical because: A.) They don't deal with gay marriage B.) They try to twist the logic to fit they're stance.

The problem with the argument is that they're not anti-gay. Because they make the problem worse if we continue like it.

hehe you'll even argue with a natural ally!

Some people, at least, make these arguments because they are anti the concept of same gender sex at all.
They feel that enough ground has been given to something which is counter to nature; we know that this is propaganda but it has validity in purely a natural procreational sense.

There are likely to be more stresses upon those of a marginalised sexuality and a child for example brought up in an alternative family. Again take away the taboo, take away the stress.


There is more chance of contracting disease if blood is present. This is therefore an argument based in logic.
We can all practice safe sex but as with the sexual revolution brought about by the pill and the 1960's free love movement, STD's were more quickly passed around.
This happened also with more acceptance of Homosexuality and the newfound freedom to express their natural desires. (Oh come on they were all at it in the 80 and 90's and why not!;) )

What you have to understand is that these are logical arguments, yes used as anti marriage arguments due to prejudice but the feeling is that if greater acceptance is given throughout society (Marriage and adoption are the final points for equality) then all aspects will proliferate. Disease, pestilence, moral collapse the end of humanity as we know it will ensue.

Well these are all true and logical but welcome.

Morality is based on evil and humanity should be ever changing. .. the disease? well that will calm down when they stop shagging indiscriminately (yes marriage may help! hehe)

but logic and the acceptance of something as logic is paradoxically always subjective. (which is why science based upon empirical study and logic can often have a plethora of vying hypotheses.)



And some people genuinely do beleive that society will become more 'gay' as a whole and that 'man' will change in nature if gender comes completely out of the closet.
They genuinely do beleive that our ability to naturally procreate is under threat.

So all i say is, let anyone marry who wants to! Let there be love!

But don;t so easily dismiss peoples views as illogical as it accentuates the dichotomy.

I've just finishd my cuban, and glass of brandy, and I would like, in particular, to share the moment with you guys..

Norse wrote:I've just finishd my cuban, and glass of brandy, and I would like, in particular, to share the moment with you..

So you had ze shmoke, but no pancake?

Norse wrote:I've just finishd my cuban, and glass of brandy, and I would like, in particular, to share the moment with you guys..

Beautiful Norsey!

jiminski wrote:Beautiful Norsey!

It makes it all worth while hearing it from you jim.

marriage is a primative ritual that has become law. This is a non-issue to me but it is an issue that keeps people unaware of REAL issues. I do not care about sexuality...i care about the education of our children, i care about the elderly who get no medication...i care about reality. Sexuality is nature...Humanity is the belief of taking care of everyone to make a greater nation. in my humble opinion

Nice to hear brother Norse!

Norse wrote:I've just finishd my cuban, and glass of brandy, and I would like, in particular, to share the moment with you guys..

You're one of a kind, Norse!

Haywood Jablomie wrote:marriage is a primative ritual that has become law. This is a non-issue to me but it is an issue that keeps people unaware of REAL issues. I do not care about sexuality...i care about the education of our children, i care about the elderly who get no medication...i care about reality. Sexuality is nature...Humanity is the belief of taking care of everyone to make a greater nation. in my humble opinion

I agree Jab but this is symbolic for a section of humanity on their search for equality!
Equality not just in the eyes of the law but in the perception of 'morality' regarding something fundamental to their existence.

jiminski wrote:
I agree Jab but this is symbolic for a section of humanity on their search for equality!
Equality not just in the eyes of the law but in the perception of 'morality' regarding something fundamental to their existence.

Jim, I fear that most of the half witted, toothless slobs that you have directed these comments towards will only understand around 48% of the words you are trying to tell them.

luns101 wrote:
You're one of a kind, Norse!

And so are you luns. Aren't we all just one big happy diverse family?

Norse wrote:

luns101 wrote:
You're one of a kind, Norse!

And so are you luns. Aren't we all just one big happy diverse family?

Aye!

Napoleon Ier wrote:Marriage isn't a right, it is a social advantage given to those who could potentially bear children and lives their lives together. Gays can't have children. Why do I want to have society give them a benefit they shouldn't have?

Allow me to quote Hecter here:

What I want to know is why are we letting people of different races marry each other? Marriage is an institution to allow benefits to people who want to propagate their species. If you marry somebody of a different colour, then you are diluting your species and in effect helping it to die out. While we're at it, married people who do not propagate within 10 years should be imprisoned. Infertile people (whether by age, genetics/disease or artificial means) should not be allowed to marry. Birth control should not be sold to married persons either. Because marriage is an institution for people to propagate the species. We are giving them benefits so they can have children, nothing more.

Marriage is not a way to reproduce! You don't have to marry to have children, and you don't have to have children when you're married.

But I'm curious about the constant statements that gay people can't have children. Because I sure as hell think that the fact I know gay couples with kids means they can.

Also, your whole attitude of "gays have right s" is fraudulent. Gays do not exist. We live on a broad spectrum of sexuality,and some people are leaningmore to one side than the other. No one is saying more-gay-leaners can't marry. Of course they can! Just not someone of the same sex. They have just the same rights as everyone else. Yes, you might argue, thatsa right which is unlikely ever to come and benefit them.

They can marry, just not the people they want too?

Well, some people aren't benefited as much by some rights than others. That's life.

WTF???? Are you serious?

Napoleon Ier wrote:Why should we allow gays to marry though? CivilUnion, sure why the h*ck not, but Marriage? No! That is for heterosexual couples who could potentially have/adopt a kid and deserve these social advantages.

We allow homosexual adoption, so why should they now not be allowed to marry?

Yes. Someone's vote may be more pandered to than another's in an election. They're right to vote may have slightly more influence. The fact that you know gay couples with adopted children is irrelevant. They should not be allowed adoption. Marrigae is simply, legally, financial advantage and social recognition of a couple ableto raise children. Gays cannot. They can have a civil union. Not however a marriage.

Napoleon Ier wrote:Yes. Someone's vote may be more pandered to than another's in an election. They're right to vote may have slightly more influence. The fact that you know gay couples with adopted children is irrelevant. They should not be allowed adoption. Marrigae is simply, legally, financial advantage and social recognition of a couple ableto raise children. Gays cannot. They can have a civil union. Not however a marriage.

Gays can raise children.

And people would still have the same right to vote in the election. But with the other issue it's that some people are allowed to marry the loves of their life, and other's aren't. It's like banning interracial marriage and claiming well... it's okay white people can't marry black people as sometimes people benefit from rights more.

Napoleon Ier wrote: Marriage isn't a right, it is a social advantage given to those who could potentially bear children and lives their lives together. Gays can't have children. Why do I want to have society give them a benefit they shouldn't have?

This is my personal favorite argument against gay marriage. Does this also mean that a woman who is past child bearing age can't get married? Seriously people. Marriage is about love (and tax benefits) who am I or who are you to deny people the right to express said love because they happen to love someone of the same sex? That's just mean.

Fieryo wrote: That's just mean.

Handbags at the ready!

Norse wrote:

Fieryo wrote: That's just mean.

Handbags at the ready!

*cat-fight*

Napoleon Ier wrote:Yes. Someone's vote may be more pandered to than another's in an election. They're right to vote may have slightly more influence. The fact that you know gay couples with adopted children is irrelevant. They should not be allowed adoption. Marrigae is simply, legally, financial advantage and social recognition of a couple ableto raise children. Gays cannot. They can have a civil union. Not however a marriage.

No, Nappy, unless you're arguing from a religious standpoint you are on a loser here. If marriage is a legal, financial and social contract linked to an ability to raise children then homosexuals apply in every case. You said before-hand that adoption is included, and as much as you may find it distasteful homosexuals can and do raise children successfully. If you want to make marriage only for those who can physically bear child then feel free, but both you and I know that's a ridiculous notion.

Religion is really the only option for you here I'm afraid. I can accept that, as much as I disagree with it. Everything else is prejudice.

What entitlement do they have to this privilege?

In a free country, we have equality of rights do we not?
To what title does society accord an advanatge, whatever it may be, to two men, under the pretetxte that they ...er... live under the same roof?

Why an advantage for some? Either this advantage has a utility proening from a tangible reality (one or several children) from which society benefits, as is the case for normal couples, and the advanage has reason to exist, or there is none, and the advantage hould not be granted.

Napoleon Ier wrote: Either this advantage has a utility proening from a tangible reality (one or several children) from which society benefits, as is the case for normal couples, and the advanage has reason to exist, or there is none, and the advantage hould not be granted.

So are you saying marriage is only allowed for people who plan on having children?

Fieryo wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote: Either this advantage has a utility proening from a tangible reality (one or several children) from which society benefits, as is the case for normal couples, and the advanage has reason to exist, or there is none, and the advantage hould not be granted.

So are you saying marriage is only allowed for people who plan on having children?

No, nothing that simple. What he is ofcourse saying is that gay people may not get children. And since he forbids them getting kids, he can claim gay people can't get children. Then he says marriage is only allowed for people who plan on having children.
I mean, even when a women has a kid and she marries her girlfriend, it's wrong because somehow that should also not be allowed.

What entitlement do they have to this privilege?

The fact that they don't have less right to marry whomever they want.

In a free country, we have equality of rights do we not?
To what title does society accord an advanatge, whatever it may be, to two men, under the pretetxte that they ...er... live under the same roof?

Ah I see what you're saying. You think it's all about taking advantage of the system.

Fieryo wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote: Either this advantage has a utility proening from a tangible reality (one or several children) from which society benefits, as is the case for normal couples, and the advanage has reason to exist, or there is none, and the advantage hould not be granted.

So are you saying marriage is only allowed for people who plan on having children?

It is also question of public recognition of a couple or family. Besides, the fact is also that these couples could have children, whereas gays cannot.

I do however for there to be a proper marriage, the possibility of children must be envisaged, for me, for both moral and religious reasons, this is essential.