My solution to the gay marriage issue: stricter divorce laws

[nehalem256]

How about we just get rid of religion and let everyone live in peace.

And how would that make it so gay marriage was allowed considering that major non-religious countries such as China and Japan do not allow gay marriage?

All you are showing is your own bigotry toward religion.

 

[hal2kilo]

If gay people really want to get married, all they have to do is to become straight and marry someone of the opposite sex. There are several problems with this argument, the first of which is that it presumes that sexual orientation is a choice. This lie is promoted so endlessly by bigoted religious leaders that it has become accepted as fact by society as a whole, and it was advanced, beginning in the 1980's, for the purpose of discrediting the gay rights movement. But the reality is that a half century of social research on this subject, consisting of thousands of studies, beginning with the Kinsey and Minnesota Twin studies of the 1950's and continuing to the present, has shown conclusively - beyond any reasonable doubt - that among males, sexual orientation is only very slightly flexible, and among females, it is only modestly more so. That homosexuality is congenital, inborn, and has a strong genetic component. In other words, if you're gay, you're gay and there is little that you do about it, regardless of the endless propaganda to the contrary.

Another problem with this argument is that it presumes that heterosexuality, if it were a choice, is self-evidently a more desireable and/or morally superior choice to make. This is a qualitative argument with whom many gay people - and many thinking straight people as well, both religious and secular - would take issue.

A third problem is that this argument presumes that someone else has the right to veto your presumed choice sexual orientation on the basis that they are not comfortable with the choice you have made. It is difficult for me to see how any religionist or anti-gay bigot, however sincere and well-meaning, has the right to arrogate to himself that veto power. Or, frankly, why a homosexual should be forced to go out of his way to make bigots comfortable with their bigotry.

A fourth, legalistic problem with this argument is that it presumes that if the choice of sexual orientation can be made, the voluntary nature of that choice removes any and all right to the protection of the law for the choice which has been made. But I would point out that the First Amendment to the United States constitution protects, by constitutional fiat itself, a purely voluntary choice - that of religion. So if it is acceptable to argue that unpopular sexual minorities have no right to equal protection of the law because they can avoid disadvantage or persecution by voluntarily changing the choice they have presumably made, then it is equally true that the First Amendment should not include protection for choice in religion, because no rational person could argue that religious belief is itself not a choice. In other words, this is like arguing that you should not expect legal protection from being persecuted because you are a Mormon or a Catholic; the solution to such disadvantage or persecution is simple: just become a Southern Baptist or whatever. I have never, ever seen a religious opponent of homosexuality who is asserting that homosexuality is a choice, advance that last point with regards to religion - a fact which very glaringly demonstrates the clearly bigoted character of this argument.

http://www.bidstrup.com/marriage.htm

You are the Jedi master.:thumbsup:

 

[SheHateMe]

And how would that make it so gay marriage was allowed considering that major non-religious countries such as China and Japan do not allow gay marriage?

All you are showing is your own bigotry toward religion.

Bigotry? I'd say disdain, you can thank religious people with attitudes like yours!

 

[mikeymikec]

Heterosexual couples can pro-create. Homosexual couples cannot.

For this reason society has an interest in heterosexual couples. While it has no more interest in homosexual couples than it does platonic friendships.

So couples who cannot have children (due to a medical problem, for example) should not be allowed to marry?

Should there be a promise to have x number of children in the marriage vows? What happens if a couple doesn't meet the quota?

And how would that make it so gay marriage was allowed considering that major non-religious countries such as China and Japan do not allow gay marriage?

What about countries that don't recognise that women have rights too, for example, is that a reason why they shouldn't have equal rights in civilised countries?

 

[SheHateMe]

So couples who cannot have children (due to a medical abnormality, for example) should not be allowed to marry?

Should there be a promise to have x number of children in the marriage vows?

No, you misunderstood. According to Nehalem, it is okay to not want children or to be physically incapable of having them....

as long as you are heterosexual. Heterosexuals who voluntarily disrupt or disable their natural ability to reproduce are still okay because they have the correct sexual orientation.

Kinda like how its okay for Christians to sin against the Bible but have God forgive them every single time and the rest of us are just going straight to hell...

 

[nehalem256]

So couples who cannot have children (due to a medical problem, for example) should not be allowed to marry?

Should there be a promise to have x number of children in the marriage vows? What happens if a couple doesn't meet the quota?

Do you have a fool proof method of determining fertility?

I would say that couples that do not intend to have children should not get married.

What about countries that don't recognise that women have rights too, for example, is that a reason why they shouldn't have equal rights in civilised countries?

I thought liberals believe in respecting all cultures?

 

[mikeymikec]

Do you have a fool proof method of determining fertility?

I've heard that sexual intercourse on a regular basis is quite a good test. Sperm count is fairly indicative too. What has that got to do with the question?

For example, the would-be husband may not be able to do his part because he had his testicles shot off, or perhaps the would-be wife had to have her womb removed for whatever reason.

I would say that couples that do not intend to have children should not get married.

Any particular reason? And in this ideal reality of yours, isn't that rather an intolerant attitude?

I thought liberals believe in respecting all cultures?

- edit - I've just noticed the context you're asking this question in, I'm sorry, what? I asked you a question, then you skipped straight past it.

 

[nehalem256]

I've heard that sexual intercourse on a regular basis is quite a good test. Sperm count is fairly indicative too. What has that got to do with the question?

For example, the would-be husband may not be able to do his part because he had his testicles shot off, or perhaps the would-be wife had to have her womb removed for whatever reason.

So in general no such fertility test exists.

Any particular reason? And in this ideal reality of yours, isn't that rather an intolerant attitude?

Marriage is not about tolerance. It is about encouraging people to act in a manner that is necessary for a stable society and for successfully raising children.

Liberals seem to think "marriage" exists merely for the profit of individuals. I really do not even understand why we are using the same word to describe what seems to me to be 2 totally different institutions.

 

[mikeymikec]

Marriage is not about tolerance. It is about encouraging people to act in a manner that is necessary for a stable society and for successfully raising children.

By your own definition marriage is about tolerance. Marriages would fall apart left, right and centre without it, unless you also believe that marriage is about the man telling and the woman and children obeying.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Marriage is not about tolerance. It is about encouraging people to act in a manner that is necessary for a stable society and for successfully raising children.

That's a fair point. So you would accept gay marriage if it were related to people raising children then, correct?

Recent estimates from the 2008 ACS show 13.9 percent of male-male unmarried couple and 26.5 percent of female-female unmarried couple households contain children. A larger percentage of opposite-sex households contain children, as 43 percent of both married opposite-sex couple and unmarried opposite-sex couple households contain children. [source]

Huh. Looks like gay couples already do raise children. And sure, straight couples do it as a greater percentage, but they're still under 50%. Would you allow gay couples who wanted to raise children to be married? Would you disallow marriage for straight couples who were not committed to raising children?

 

[SheHateMe]

Marriage is not about tolerance.


hahahahahahaha. Marriage is all about tolerance, idiot. Its in the fucking vows.