Have I sufficiently addressed reasons against gay marriages?

[assemblage]

Originally posted by: marcello

Originally posted by: assemblage

Originally posted by: marcello
OP - You should add the "Gay people shouldn't be married because the point of marriage is to have kids" reason. The debunking of that is:
1) I know many couples that are married, don't have kids, and never will. So......if anyone needs an explanation of that, they are dumb (don't worry, I think you're dumb anyways if you're against gay marriage)
2) The people who make this stupid argument should support a law that requires all married couples to have kids (unless they can't)

Most married couples have either had children or will have children. Just because you know of many childless couples doesn't change that marriage is about children and family and has been for a very long time.

If it's about family then shouldn't their be laws requiring people who get married to have children (if they can)? Or is it only ok for straight people to "ruin the sanctity and purpose of marriage"?

I'm not sure you are asking questions. Marriage isn't about making babies. It's about creating and promoting a family environment that is most conducive for the rearing of children. Whether a couple has children or not, it doesn't change what marriage and family is about.

It's not ok for anyone to "ruin the sanctity and purpose of marriage". Of course it's only about heterosexuals ruining marriage, since that's who's involved in marriage. The thought that marriage is optional for bearing and raising children and disposable are problems. There is no need to exasberate the problems by redefining marriage.

 

[Rob9874]

What's the problem here? It is up to each society to decide if they want to allow certain actions or behaviors. Currently, this society has decided they do not want to allow gay marriage. How is this unfair? How many countries do allow gay marriage? Is the US just behind the times?

 

[marcello]

Originally posted by: assemblage

Originally posted by: marcello

Originally posted by: assemblage

Originally posted by: marcello
OP - You should add the "Gay people shouldn't be married because the point of marriage is to have kids" reason. The debunking of that is:
1) I know many couples that are married, don't have kids, and never will. So......if anyone needs an explanation of that, they are dumb (don't worry, I think you're dumb anyways if you're against gay marriage)
2) The people who make this stupid argument should support a law that requires all married couples to have kids (unless they can't)

Most married couples have either had children or will have children. Just because you know of many childless couples doesn't change that marriage is about children and family and has been for a very long time.

If it's about family then shouldn't their be laws requiring people who get married to have children (if they can)? Or is it only ok for straight people to "ruin the sanctity and purpose of marriage"?

I'm not sure you are asking questions. Marriage isn't about making babies. It's about creating and promoting a family environment that is most conducive for the rearing of children. Whether a couple has children or not, it doesn't change what marriage and family is about.

It's not ok for anyone to "ruin the sanctity and purpose of marriage". Of course it's only about heterosexuals ruining marriage, since that's who's involved in marriage. The thought that marriage is optional for bearing and raising children and disposable are problems. There is no need to exasberate the problems by redefining marriage.

You said it's about children and family. So it's ok for some people to create a problem, but not for others? That's bullsh|t and you know it.

 

[assemblage]

Originally posted by: marcello

Originally posted by: assemblage

Originally posted by: marcello
How is homosexuality deviant? All species of animals have homosexuality inherent in their social structure. If it happens in nature.........it's natural.

And normal and acceptable? Such as infanticide? Pregnant 13 yo's? And we are mere animals?

Originally posted by: marcello
Despite their name, most history books are not very historical.

You don't need a history book to see that marriage & family has always been about male and females.

To the first point: you're comparing hurting people to consensual partnership. Very different. Also, I don't quite understand the 13 yo reference. Either way, human society used to have girls pregnant at that age. That part of society has changed, partly because our lifespan is longer, partly because we realize a 13 yo is not ready to be a parent, partly because women are allowed to be independent now, and for other reasons too.

To the second point: That's only because it hasn't been allowed. If it was allowed and accepted it would be a different story. Change and progress are important aspects of a society. I don't think we would last a day in the world 2000 years ago because it's so different, but that's a good thing.

You said that homosexuality is not deviant. You say, it's normal because it's seen in nature. You say these are also natural behaviors seen in animals. They may be, but most people agree that homosexuality is neither normal or acceptable for humans. There are many things that animals do that we don't.

Change and progress are important aspects of society, but only if the changes are positive for that society.

 

[nageov3t]

ah. I love it when people remind me that I'm deviant and contribute nothing positive to society.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: EXman
Gay people CAN get married. They choose not to by living their lifestyle. 😉

Who are you to decide their lifestyle must be discriminated against?

Is it NOT THEIR life??? 😕

 

[assemblage]

Originally posted by: marcello

Originally posted by: assemblage
It's not ok for anyone to "ruin the sanctity and purpose of marriage". Of course it's only about heterosexuals ruining marriage, since that's who's involved in marriage. The thought that marriage is optional for bearing and raising children and disposable are problems. There is no need to exasberate the problems by redefining marriage.

You said it's about children and family. So it's ok for some people to create a problem, but not for others? That's bullsh|t and you know it.

I didn't say that. I said the thought that marriage is optional for bearing and raising children and disposable are problems. I said that redefining marriage between to involve same sex couples further weakens and devalues it which is not needed or desired.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: assemblage

Originally posted by: marcello
Despite their name, most history books are not very historical.

You don't need a history book to see that marriage & family has always been about male and females.

People have always had children, well before there was such a thing as civilization or marriage, so there had to be a different reason than having children to invent the concept of marriage.

What is that other reason? Property. Historically marriage has primarily been about property.

You can have all the children you want, but historically bastards don't inherit. Only the children of marriage inherit, hence many of the problems of monarchs and their marriages. Marriage has also historically (until the 20th century in the West) been a means of treating women as property, passing them from their father's family to their husband's family. Women couldn't own property even in the recent Victorian era; they had to have a man own it for them, as they essentially were property.

 

[assemblage]

Originally posted by: loki8481
ah. I love it when people remind me that I'm deviant and contribute nothing positive to society.

"contribute nothing positive to society" are your own words. There are a lot of activities that are considered 'deviant.' I don't see the need for all drama about the word.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: assemblage

Originally posted by: marcello

Originally posted by: assemblage
It's not ok for anyone to "ruin the sanctity and purpose of marriage". Of course it's only about heterosexuals ruining marriage, since that's who's involved in marriage. The thought that marriage is optional for bearing and raising children and disposable are problems. There is no need to exasberate the problems by redefining marriage.

You said it's about children and family. So it's ok for some people to create a problem, but not for others? That's bullsh|t and you know it.

I didn't say that. I said the thought that marriage is optional for bearing and raising children and disposable are problems. I said that redefining marriage between to involve same sex couples further weakens and devalues it which is not needed or desired.

don't breed. or at least don't pass along your bigotry to your offspring.

kthnx

 

[marcello]

Originally posted by: assemblage
You said that homosexuality is not deviant. You say, it's normal because it's seen in nature. You say these are also natural behaviors seen in animals. They may be, but most people agree that homosexuality is neither normal or acceptable for humans. There are many things that animals do that we don't.

Change and progress are important aspects of society, but only if the changes are positive for that society.

Most people thought slavery was a good thing at one point. Most people thought you didn't need proof to sentence someone (witch trials). So most people think homosexuality is wrong. It doesn't mean they're right. Why do you feel the need to control other people? They aren't trying to control you, they just want the same rights you have.

Originally posted by: assemblage

Originally posted by: marcello

Originally posted by: assemblage
It's not ok for anyone to "ruin the sanctity and purpose of marriage". Of course it's only about heterosexuals ruining marriage, since that's who's involved in marriage. The thought that marriage is optional for bearing and raising children and disposable are problems. There is no need to exasberate the problems by redefining marriage.

You said it's about children and family. So it's ok for some people to create a problem, but not for others? That's bullsh|t and you know it.

I didn't say that. I said the thought that marriage is optional for bearing and raising children and disposable are problems. I said that redefining marriage between to involve same sex couples further weakens and devalues it which is not needed or desired.

Originally posted by: assemblage
Most married couples have either had children or will have children. Just because you know of many childless couples doesn't change that marriage is about children and family and has been for a very long time.

Whoops, you lose. Care to change what you said?

 

[skace]

I updated my original post with current reasons. Check em out and get back to me.

"So I see that you value the morality of the homosexual lobby over the morality of those who follow Judeo-Christian traditions"

I think I addressed this one in my first point. But I guess I could add to it: there is room for values to coexist under a set of laws that give equality while the other law forces only one set of values. Judeo-Christians teach self-governing, so I do not know why they feel a law that does not match perfectly with them is somehow room for them to fall from their religion.

Wondering if it is different enough to add to original post.

FYI, I'm having a tough time following some of the random tangents that have occured in the thread. No need to call each other bigots as it doesn't really help my original post.

 

[deejayshakur]

so after reading through this quackery, i have a point that still has not been addressed.

if, after putting a constitutional ban on gay marriages and defining marriage as between a man and a woman, what then would happen with me--i was born with XXY sex chromosomes and though i was born with breasts and a penis, i underwent full feminzation surgery. i have been on hormone replacement therapy all of my life and most likely am sterile. i have a boyfriend whom i met in the hospital and we have supported each other through the years. he was born XXY as well but underwent masculinization surgery and looks hot. sorry, no pics.

we are ready to start a life of our own. would it be illegal for us to get married? let's hear it.

edit: i'll be nice, but it's still an issue that's pertinent to gay marriages. what will stop a gay man from having surgery in order to qualify as a woman? trust me, i work at a medical center in san francisco and feminization surgery is more common than you might think.

edit: clarified--if the government restricts marriage to only a man and a woman, by what basis will the sexual identity be determined? birth sex? (above example invalidates this). social sex? (ok, fine. but it is well known that even in gay relationships, one partner acts as the more feminine and the other more masculine, so as long as there is one 'man' and one 'woman' role, the marriage is valid, right?) i want to hear some solid reasoning against this argument against banning gay marriage because i see none.

edit: alright skace, im bowing out since my post is drifting farther and farther from the thread's point. good thread btw.

 

[skace]

deejay, that really doesn't help my thread, while it could be possible discussion in another thread. It just doesn't help validate or invalidate reasons against gay marriages. And trust me, you won't change anyones opinion especially if you call anyone a redneck.

 

[marcello]

Originally posted by: assemblage
I didn't say that. I said the thought that marriage is optional for bearing and raising children and disposable are problems. I said that redefining marriage between to involve same sex couples further weakens and devalues it which is not needed or desired.

You still haven't answered why it's ok for straight people to devalue marriage, but not ok for gay people. If you're against the weakening and devaluement of marriage, then you should be against it regardless if the couple is straight or gay. Therefore divorce, marriage for anything other than having a family, and adultery should all have serious consequences according to you.

 

[marcello]

Originally posted by: skace
I updated my original post with current reasons. Check em out and get back to me.

"So I see that you value the morality of the homosexual lobby over the morality of those who follow Judeo-Christian traditions"

I think I addressed this one in my first point. But I guess I could add to it: there is room for values to coexist under a set of laws that give equality while the other law forces only one set of values. Judeo-Christians teach self-governing, so I do not know why they feel a law that does not match perfectly with them is somehow room for them to fall from their religion.

Wondering if it is different enough to add to original post.

FYI, I'm having a tough time following some of the random tangents that have occured in the thread. No need to call each other bigots as it doesn't really help my original post.

Looking good skace. It would be nice to get this stickied, but I doubt they will because it shows a support of one side over the other. Keep it up if your interest is still in it. I will be here to swing the logic stick against those that seem to want to control others lives for no apparent reason. Have you noticed that everytime their point gets refuted, they suddenly switch their reason why they are against it? I have. It keeps cyclying, I guess that's why it's worthless to argue on the internet.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: EXman
Gay people CAN get married. They choose not to by living their lifestyle. 😉

Who are you to decide their lifestyle must be discriminated against?

Is it NOT THEIR life??? 😕

I voted on November 2nd to protect the family that was my right. No? and just as the OVERWHELMING BiPartisan majority did.

Take a Long hard look at the election results

White House

More seats in Senate

More seats in House

Yes to Defense of family

need I say more?

Read the writing on the wall!

 

[dullard]

I didn't read the thread, and I'm not sure if you count this as one of your already defined categories or not. But here is my argument against gay marriages:

Marriage is a religious thing. Government should not play a role in religious matters. Thus government should not pretend it can perform religious ceremonies (weddings by judges for example). Thus ALL governmental marriages should be outlawed and in my opinion are unconstitutional. This includes straight and gay marriages. There of course should be civil unions for everyone - gay or straight - which are legal unions sharing the same benefits of today's legal marriages. Marriage will be left to the churches to do as they please. A married couple may apply for a legal civil union if they wish or vise-versa.

CliffsNotes: I'm against gay LEGAL marriages since I'm against straight LEGAL marriages.

 

[skace]

Dullard, I agree with you completely, unfortunatly the ideal that you are suggesting isn't what I was addressing here. I'm only addressing why, under the current system, people felt the need to vote against gay marriages. I am simply outlining these reasons until I have the entire list and the entire understanding.

Oh and Exman, I do agree that you have the right if the vote is given to you, which it was. I simply want to know the whys and I hope I am getting them and addressing them properly.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: skace
I'm only addressing why, under the current system, people felt the need to vote against gay marriages. I am simply outlining these reasons until I have the entire list and the entire understanding.

There is one major reason, and it possibly goes under your "invalidates my religious belief" category. But the major reason people vote against it is probably this:

"My priest/pastor/etc told me that if I didn't vote against it then I'm going to hell."

I've heard that one from just about everyone who votes against many irrational things. There is no logic to argue. There is no reason that you can logically invalidate. As long as people are told (or just believe on their own) that they are doing the right thing, then you'll have policies against gays.

 

[marcello]

Originally posted by: dullard
I didn't read the thread, and I'm not sure if you count this as one of your already defined categories or not. But here is my argument against gay marriages:

Marriage is a religious thing. Government should not play a role in religious matters. Thus government should not pretend it can perform religious ceremonies (weddings by judges for example). Thus ALL governmental marriages should be outlawed and in my opinion are unconstitutional. This includes straight and gay marriages. There of course should be civil unions for everyone - gay or straight - which are legal unions sharing the same benefits of today's legal marriages. Marriage will be left to the churches to do as they please. A married couple may apply for a legal civil union if they wish or vise-versa.

CliffsNotes: I'm against gay LEGAL marriages since I'm against straight LEGAL marriages.

One question: in your scenario, if a couple gets married they'd receive no government benefits, right? But if they get a civil union, then they'd get benefits.

If so, then I agree completely.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: marcello
One question: in your scenario, if a couple gets married they'd receive no government benefits, right? But if they get a civil union, then they'd get benefits.

If so, then I agree completely.

Yep that is my dream scenario. All government benefits come only with a civil union and not with a marriage. No more signing legal marriage certificate at your wedding, instead you sign a legal civil union certificate.

This plan addresses half or even more than half of the complaints listed in the original post. Civil unions won't invalidate your religion. Marriage would be saved as a purely religious union - free of gay marriages, or interracial marriages, or whatever your particular religion is against. Marriage will be defined as it is. Civil unions give a clear reason why gays would want to have it. Having or not having kids will have nothing to do with civil unions. There will be a distinction between straight marriages and civil unions (which may be straight or gay).

 

[marcello]

What a refreshingly educated response. Thank you. It's much better than "huh huh, being gay is gay. it grosses me out and should be illegal because it's trampling my rights by gossing me out."

 

[assemblage]

Originally posted by: marcello

Originally posted by: assemblage
I didn't say that. I said the thought that marriage is optional for bearing and raising children and disposable are problems. I said that redefining marriage between to involve same sex couples further weakens and devalues it which is not needed or desired.

You still haven't answered why it's ok for straight people to devalue marriage, but not ok for gay people. If you're against the weakening and devaluement of marriage, then you should be against it regardless if the couple is straight or gay. Therefore divorce, marriage for anything other than having a family, and adultery should all have serious consequences according to you.

I never said that it's ok for straight people to weaken and devalue marriage and not ok for gay people to. I said it's not ok for anyone to devalue marriage. I never said that homosexuality should be criminalized or divorce or adultry.

The movements to strictly define marriage as between a man and a woman is a reaction to homosexuals who are determined to force their redifinition of marriage on everyone in the name of equal rights as they view it. It's not a law that says homosexuals cannot have same sex relationships, live together, and take care of each other. So I don't understand why you are saying that I should be in favor of passing laws against problems that are devaluing marriage because I think marriage should be strictly defined. I'm not trying to control people. All I'm doing is expressing my opinion on the matter. At most I'm speaking to defend something that is important.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: marcello

How is that any different than a man and woman who are friends doing the same thing? You're basically segregating straight people and gay people with that type of thinking.

it's not, but there is more risk.

Why, because you only room with guys? Nobody is worried about the other abuse. Why should we worry about this. I would say the risk is vastly greater the other way. I can just see most guys marrying another guy for a tax break. Riiiiiiiiiiiight!!!!!!!!!!!!

i didn't say it was a huge risk. he just wanted a reason.