Gay marriage

[Snorri1234]

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.

Right, so women over the age of 45/50 can't marry anymore? Nor can sterile people?

And 2 women can get married, since all they need is a seeddonor? And if they can't, do you think we should dismantle any marriage where the kids are born through artificial insemination or the kids are illegitimate?

[Napoleon Ier]

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.

No it is a question of why should I pay for their financial advantages and why should society give them recognition if they do not marry as is natural into a potentially fruitful partnership.

And no, no one has the right to marry whomever or whatever they want. I don't have the right, shuld I one day have the urge, to marry a man, or indeed an animal, only as is naturala woman. And until pathetic little effeminate metrosexual vegan who shave their legs, pluck their eyebrows and have a retarded emotional fear of violence realise homosexuality is a psuchological disease which society has no reason to give recognition to we're going to be stuck in this state of moral apostasy for some time.

I'm not stopping these people from performing their ignominious aberrations, I just don't want societal recognition of it.

[MeDeFe]

Napoleon, if I understand you correctly you're saying that marriage is an institution meant to give certain benefits to people who intend to procreate with each other and are capable of doing so. Because people cannot conceive a child by having sex with someone of the same sex, gays should not be allowed to marry under your definition of marriage.

What you haven't answered are the repeated questions (at least 2 or 3 times so far) of whether you think people who are infertile for whatever reason (genetic, through an accident, life-saving surgery, whatever) should be allowed to marry a person of the other sex if they wish to do so. They obviously cannot have any children, but so far you have avoided adressing this. Please, go ahead and give us your opinion on this matter as well.



And at one point you said that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children, but you didn't state your reasons, at least I can't recall you doing so. So please, do us the favour and elaborate on this point as well.

[Snorri1234]

No it is a question of why should I pay for their financial advantages and why should society give them recognition if they do not marry as is natural into a potentially fruitful partnership.

Because I would think that we don't force people to have kids. See I understand that you believe men and women should reproduce, but there is no valid reason other than personal desire and religious belief. It doesn't matter in the slightest what we do or if we have children or not.

And you forget that many gay people want really simple advantages. Not financial but social. Like satanspaladin who wants to be buried alongside her partner but fucking can't. You're not paying any more for something whether she gets her burial advantage or not.

And no, no one has the right to marry whomever or whatever they want. I don't have the right, shuld I one day have the urge, to marry a man,

I do. And I think that's swell though I don't plan on doing it. But I said whomever and not whatever.

or indeed an animal

Animals can't consent. But I applaud your attempt to bring the old slippery slope in again. Regardless that it's fucking stupid and illogical.

, only as is naturala woman.

I could as easily say that gay sex is also entirely natural. The only thing that isn't natural would be marriage actually.

And until pathetic little effeminate metrosexual vegan who shave their legs, pluck their eyebrows and have a retarded emotional fear of violence realise homosexuality is a psuchological disease which society has no reason to give recognition to we're going to be stuck in this state of moral apostasy for some time.

You're beginning to sound like Norse. Stop sounding like a retard and come up with some valid reasoning. Just admit your stance is only based on religion!

Explain why you think that women in menopause can't marry, nor can people who are sterile.

[satanspaladin]

just a small correction snorri i think it me not happy2 seeyou that posted that as far as i know happy is heterosexual mores the shame

[Snorri1234]

just a small correction snorri i think it me not happy2 seeyou that posted that as far as i know happy is heterosexual mores the shame

Oh shit yeah, sorry. I'll edit.XD

[gryffin13]

In addition to the aforementioned questions you have not answered, you also have not answered why marriage has child rearing implications. As far as I know, there is nothing in the laws that states marriage is at all based on producing offspring. Where did you come up with this idea? Is it a pretty common idea?

And no, no one has the right to marry whomever or whatever they want. I don't have the right, shuld I one day have the urge, to marry a man, or indeed an animal, only as is naturala woman. And until pathetic little effeminate metrosexual vegan who shave their legs, pluck their eyebrows and have a retarded emotional fear of violence realise homosexuality is a psuchological disease which society has no reason to give recognition to we're going to be stuck in this state of moral apostasy for some time.

I'm not going to try to dispute that homosexuality is a disease because you can actually make a logical argument for that, but I will dispute that society should not give recognition to it. We build ramps for people in wheelchairs. Should we just make them figure out how to climb the stairs without legs? Just because you don't have the same problem as someone else doesn't mean we should not help them.

[Beastly]

I don't know where Satan is from, but here in America you can buy a plot, and put whoever you want there.

[hecter]

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.

The only thing I have left to say to you is:
You're a dumb shit.

[Beastly]

actually hecter that was very unintelligent for you to say.

Just because someone has a different view or believes different doesn't make them dumb. He just is being forthright in his opinion. And you don't like it.

I don't see him calling every body names, because he doesn't agree with the majority?

now who is really the dumb shit?

HOwever, kids need loving homes... and Gays are very capable of adoption, and very capable of raising children. Loving them, giving them all the things that a same sex couple does.

[muy_thaiguy]

How could this even be a legitimate debate on homosexual marriage? You've already set up the discussion so that people can't give religious reasons as logical ones.

I want legitimate answers to this: what is a logical reason for not allowing gay marriage other than personal religious beliefs.

Then if someone doesn't think homosexual marriage should be made legal you're making it sound like those people are against rights.

I want to hear rationale for not allowing gay rights.

Anyone who decides to try and discuss this with you is going to be made to look like they hate homosexuals.

Are you implying that religious reasons are logical? Give me an example please.

And of course I am saying that being against gay marriage is anti-gay rights. Thats my WHOLE argument. If there was nothing wrong with not allowing gay marriage there would be nothing to discuss.

Why marriage and not Civil Union? Civil Unions are recognized by the courts, and gays get the same rights (at times, it seems more), while leaving alone the religious sacrement of marriage. Seems like a good compromise to me.

[jiminski]

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.

[Snorri1234]

Why marriage and not Civil Union? Civil Unions are recognized by the courts, and gays get the same rights (at times, it seems more), while leaving alone the religious sacrement of marriage. Seems like a good compromise to me.

Because marriage is not a religious term. There is already a distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage.

And besides, you'd have to take the term marriage away from heterosexual civil marriages too, as otherwise it wouldn't make the slighest bit of sense. Are you ready to tell 100 million+ people that they're not actually married anymore?

[Snorri1234]

actually hecter that was very unintelligent for you to say.

Just because someone has a different view or believes different doesn't make them dumb.

It does when those views are dumb.

[ritz627]

How could this even be a legitimate debate on homosexual marriage? You've already set up the discussion so that people can't give religious reasons as logical ones.

I want legitimate answers to this: what is a logical reason for not allowing gay marriage other than personal religious beliefs.

Then if someone doesn't think homosexual marriage should be made legal you're making it sound like those people are against rights.

I want to hear rationale for not allowing gay rights.

Anyone who decides to try and discuss this with you is going to be made to look like they hate homosexuals.

Are you implying that religious reasons are logical? Give me an example please.

And of course I am saying that being against gay marriage is anti-gay rights. Thats my WHOLE argument. If there was nothing wrong with not allowing gay marriage there would be nothing to discuss.

Why marriage and not Civil Union? Civil Unions are recognized by the courts, and gays get the same rights (at times, it seems more), while leaving alone the religious sacrement of marriage. Seems like a good compromise to me.

Except by doing this, its sends a bad message - i.e. homosexuals are lesser beings than heterosexuals and therefore deserve lesser rights. You are putting them down by not allowing them to marry.

And as if there is any sanctity left in marriage nowadays anyway. The divorce rate is ridiculous. To quote an episode of family guy: why should we let to straight people who hate each other marry, and not homosexual people who love each other? If Jesus walked this earth today, I doubt that he would go out speaking against gay marriage before going around speaking out against capital punishment (since that was how he died and all), and an unjust war. But maybe I just interpreted the bible wrong. I thought it was all about helping others out, but maybe it was about how only straight people should marry too.

[muy_thaiguy]

Except by doing this, its sends a bad message - i.e. homosexuals are lesser beings than heterosexuals and therefore deserve lesser rights. You are putting them down by not allowing them to marry.

And as if there is any sanctity left in marriage nowadays anyway. The divorce rate is ridiculous. To quote an episode of family guy: why should we let to straight people who hate each other marry, and not homosexual people who love each other? If Jesus walked this earth today, I doubt that he would go out speaking against gay marriage before going around speaking out against capital punishment (since that was how he died and all), and an unjust war. But maybe I just interpreted the bible wrong. I thought it was all about helping others out, but maybe it was about how only straight people should marry too.

How's it implying that Civil Unions are bad? The term marriage is almost always associated with being done inside a church (not always, I know, but that is how it is viewed) and they are basically getting married, it's just called a Civil Union is all. Also, to stereotype that all marriages are thus, is a bit sad really. Many marriages still work out, and between people that love eachother. Also, as a rule, I don't take to much from shows like Family Guy and the newer Simpson's shows. The older ones were made to be funny, now it's just another politiacl outlet. And considering that being gay as of itself is determined a sin in the bible, I believe Jesus would have something to say about that.

[static_ice]

I'm not going to try to dispute that homosexuality is a disease because you can actually make a logical argument for that, but I will dispute that society should not give recognition to it. We build ramps for people in wheelchairs. Should we just make them figure out how to climb the stairs without legs? Just because you don't have the same problem as someone else doesn't mean we should not help them.

So you're saying homosexuality is a disability?

[gryffin13]

I'm not going to try to dispute that homosexuality is a disease because you can actually make a logical argument for that, but I will dispute that society should not give recognition to it. We build ramps for people in wheelchairs. Should we just make them figure out how to climb the stairs without legs? Just because you don't have the same problem as someone else doesn't mean we should not help them.

So you're saying homosexuality is a disability?

That's not how I personally think, but I have actually heard some legitimate logical arguments to state that homosexuality is not necessarily a disability, but at least some sort of psychological misfire. So even though its not what I believe, I give it credence since it is backed up by logic.

[ritz627]

Except by doing this, its sends a bad message - i.e. homosexuals are lesser beings than heterosexuals and therefore deserve lesser rights. You are putting them down by not allowing them to marry.

And as if there is any sanctity left in marriage nowadays anyway. The divorce rate is ridiculous. To quote an episode of family guy: why should we let to straight people who hate each other marry, and not homosexual people who love each other? If Jesus walked this earth today, I doubt that he would go out speaking against gay marriage before going around speaking out against capital punishment (since that was how he died and all), and an unjust war. But maybe I just interpreted the bible wrong. I thought it was all about helping others out, but maybe it was about how only straight people should marry too.

How's it implying that Civil Unions are bad? The term marriage is almost always associated with being done inside a church (not always, I know, but that is how it is viewed) and they are basically getting married, it's just called a Civil Union is all. Also, to stereotype that all marriages are thus, is a bit sad really. Many marriages still work out, and between people that love eachother. Also, as a rule, I don't take to much from shows like Family Guy and the newer Simpson's shows. The older ones were made to be funny, now it's just another politiacl outlet. And considering that being gay as of itself is determined a sin in the bible, I believe Jesus would have something to say about that.

A Civil Union is less than marriage, and the two are clearly not equal. If you can't see that, then I have nothing else to say to you than that you are ignorant.

AS for the reputation of marriage not being correct, here are the facts:

According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%

(http://www.divorcerate.org/)

While the quote was from family guy, that's not what you should take from it, take from it what it actually says. Again your ignorance is getting the best of you.

About the bible. What I'm saying is that the bible had many, many more important messages than "gays should not marry". Yet somehow, that's what people who are "morally correct" chose to take from it. There are more pressing religious issues in American that are being thrown aside here somehow. For instance: helping out others less fortunate than yourself - that was Jesus' main message. So don't you think he would care more about a higher minimum wage, welfare, and social security than gay marriage?

[gryffin13]

How's it implying that Civil Unions are bad? The term marriage is almost always associated with being done inside a church (not always, I know, but that is how it is viewed) and they are basically getting married, it's just called a Civil Union is all.

Yeah but in order to logically say that homosexuality is banned by religion and marriage is religious, therefore homosexuals should not be allowed to get married, then you also have to say that non-religious people cannot get married. You cannot have one but not the other.

And considering that being gay as of itself is determined a sin in the bible, I believe Jesus would have something to say about that.

I assume that you are referencing leviticus 18:22 since that is really the only part in the bible that at all condemns homosexuality. But Exodus 35:2 says you should put anyone who works on the sabboth to death. I doubt you would advocate that. And exodus 21:7 mandates how you are to sell your daughter into slavery. And Deuteronomy 21:18-21 tells you that you should stone disobedient children.

[muy_thaiguy]

Except by doing this, its sends a bad message - i.e. homosexuals are lesser beings than heterosexuals and therefore deserve lesser rights. You are putting them down by not allowing them to marry.

And as if there is any sanctity left in marriage nowadays anyway. The divorce rate is ridiculous. To quote an episode of family guy: why should we let to straight people who hate each other marry, and not homosexual people who love each other? If Jesus walked this earth today, I doubt that he would go out speaking against gay marriage before going around speaking out against capital punishment (since that was how he died and all), and an unjust war. But maybe I just interpreted the bible wrong. I thought it was all about helping others out, but maybe it was about how only straight people should marry too.

How's it implying that Civil Unions are bad? The term marriage is almost always associated with being done inside a church (not always, I know, but that is how it is viewed) and they are basically getting married, it's just called a Civil Union is all. Also, to stereotype that all marriages are thus, is a bit sad really. Many marriages still work out, and between people that love eachother. Also, as a rule, I don't take to much from shows like Family Guy and the newer Simpson's shows. The older ones were made to be funny, now it's just another politiacl outlet. And considering that being gay as of itself is determined a sin in the bible, I believe Jesus would have something to say about that.

A Civil Union is less than marriage, and the two are clearly not equal. If you can't see that, then I have nothing else to say to you than that you are ignorant.

AS for the reputation of marriage not being correct, here are the facts:

According to enrichment journal on the divorce rate in America:
The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%
The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%
The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%

(http://www.divorcerate.org/)

While the quote was from family guy, that's not what you should take from it, take from it what it actually says. Again your ignorance is getting the best of you.

About the bible. What I'm saying is that the bible had many, many more important messages than "gays should not marry". Yet somehow, that's what people who are "morally correct" chose to take from it. There are more pressing religious issues in American that are being thrown aside here somehow. For instance: helping out others less fortunate than yourself - that was Jesus' main message. So don't you think he would care more about a higher minimum wage, welfare, and social security than gay marriage?

First off, care to tell me how a Civil Union is less then a marriage before calling me ignorant? Also, what I was saying is that you make it sound like that all heterosexual couples hate eachother when they are married, which is far from true. As for the divorce rates, could it have anything to do with people marrying at to young of an age and being rebelious in nature? Implying that straight people cannot love eachother (which is what that quote was doing) is ridiculous. Civil Unions, the way I see it, give the same basic rights as married couples, and should. Also, for your little Bible argument, here is a nice simple little saying.

"Give a man a fish, he eats for a day (Socialism), teach a man to fish, he eats for life." Simple really, just saying that people need to learn to rely on themselves and not others to do things, which shows responsibility and maturity.

[Fieryo]

No it is a question of why should I pay for their financial advantages and why should society give them recognition if they do not marry as is natural into a potentially fruitful partnership.

How are you "paying" for it? There are homosexual marriages in places all over the world. Are you physically harmed? Do they pose a detriment to you and/or those close to you? You're not paying for them, they're paying for you. It's because of attitudes like yours that couples cannot be recognized as legitimate and are thus relegated to second tier citizenship.

[hecter]

actually hecter that was very unintelligent for you to say.

Just because someone has a different view or believes different doesn't make them dumb. He just is being forthright in his opinion. And you don't like it.

I don't see him calling every body names, because he doesn't agree with the majority?

now who is really the dumb shit?

HOwever, kids need loving homes... and Gays are very capable of adoption, and very capable of raising children. Loving them, giving them all the things that a same sex couple does.

He's a dumb shit because he's claiming that marriage is solely for financial benefits for raising children.

[Fieryo]

He's a dumb shit because he's claiming that marriage is solely for financial benefits for raising children.

No offense, but your total lack of actual argument makes you sound dumber than him.

[hecter]

He's a dumb shit because he's claiming that marriage is solely for financial benefits for raising children.

No offense, but your total lack of actual argument makes you sound dumber than him.

I posted something really quite sarcastic on page 10 or 11. It had to do with imprisoning couples who did not bear child within 10 years, denying infertile couples the right to marry, not allowing interracial marriages because it dilutes the gene pool and helps the extinction of their particular race, ect. ect.