Same sex marriages (1 Viewer)

[classicjimbo]

Firstly, no im not muslim. And the fact you can't identify if I'm one of those based on my reasoning shows it has no bearing on my reasoning.

good to know!

well thanks for raising your hand!
now I can add a new category "oddly obsessed with latin root words" to my list! thanks

 

[snowflakeptical]

Also please understand:
same-sex couple---->not married----->adoption, IVF or no kids
same sex couple----->married----->adoption, IVF or no kids
yeah, when they're banned married, they will totally be obliged to get with the opposite gender and have kids. Happy days......

 

[futuremidwife]

You are pissed about the wrong things, man. Don't forget all that happens in the world - talk about corruption and shit in politics, talk about rape, oppression in 3rd world countries, talk about the fact there are starving children bruh and we aint helping them, talk about the lack of maternal hygiene or the fact that we're not breatfeeding enough. Nah we're too busy lol we're too angry about 2 men wanting to make it offiical. Talk about something that'll make the world a better place to stay and live in.

Equality for all people bruh.

 

[Rhinoz8142]

You are pissed about the wrong things, man. Don't forget all that happens in the world - talk about corruption and shit in politics, talk about rape, oppression in 3rd world countries, talk about the fact there are starving children bruh and we aint helping them, talk about the lack of maternal hygiene or the fact that we're not breatfeeding enough. Nah we're too busy lol we're too angry about 2 men wanting to make it offiical. Talk about something that'll make the world a better place to stay and live in.

Equality for all people bruh.

fukin oath..

 

[BLIT2014]

''No freedom till we're equal, damn right I support it''.

 

[iBibah]

It should be redefined.

Well, I think the government should abolish marriage and just deal in civil unions between couples regardless of sex. But opening marriage up as opposed to abolishing it is far, far more likely.

OK now we're getting somewhere. Because the bolded is what redefining marriage will lead to/practically achieve: the dissolving of marriage. I have no problem that you think this (I disagree of course, but I can't make you value marriage), but instead of the gay movement seeking to redfine marriage, I would rather them seek the abolishment of marriage.

My question is then why are they not content with the civil unions and same civil rights? Why seek the word marriage? Because it means a lot to us, thats why.

It is the same. We're excluding groups of people based on the way they were born. "Anyone can technically vote, but the law restricted certain people" - What? Women couldn't vote. That's roughly 50% of the population that couldn't. "Anyone" doesn't apply in that case. Same situation. Gay people may not be 50% but they're there. But you're right, marriage *historically* is heterosexual. Just like voting was *historically* only for white males.

Marriage is an institution, voting is not. Just because voting was once not allowed (legally) by women, and it now is, is not justification to change everything that has historical backing. Marriage has existed the way it has for thousands of years for a reason, and that is not being considered by the gay movement.

I think boys and girls should be educated in the same classroom, but I think there should be opportunities for classes involving only boys or only girls at certain times throughout the week. I don't think it's *unfair* necessarily as it is currently, but I don't think it's right. Unfair would be that girls get an opportunity that boys don't (or vice versa). What both groups miss out on however is social development and I think that is unfair.

Exactly as it is currently it is not unfair, because they are schools created for females. Whether it should be the case is another matter.

But it's not unfair in the marriage scenario because all men can seek women and all women can seek men. Sexuality and love is irrelevant.

Yes, I think they should be legal. (I appreciate you accepting it was simplified)

What's the point of marriage? Benefits (tax, etc). Gay couples should be able to benefit from it. If marriage was not government regulated, I wouldn't necessarily care.

Why not adjust tax laws to cater for all couples regardless of sex? That way gays have all the same rights and benefits, and marriage maintains it's social purpose in light of families etc. ?

 

[wannaspoon]

I have nothing against it. However, a Church shouldn't be compelled to marry a same sex couple because the law says so.

 

[snowflakeptical]

Exactly as it is currently it is not unfair, because they are schools created for females. Whether it should be the case is another matter.

um, how?

 

[AAEldar]

OK now we're getting somewhere. Because the bolded is what redefining marriage will lead to/practically achieve: the dissolving of marriage. I have no problem that you think this (I disagree of course, but I can't make you value marriage), but instead of the gay movement seeking to redfine marriage, I would rather them seek the abolishment of marriage.

My question is then why are they not content with the civil unions and same civil rights? Why seek the word marriage? Because it means a lot to us, thats why.

Again because marriage is recognised by the government when it shouldn't be. The purpose of the government is to provide equal opportunity for all, and it's not doing that by allowing marriage only between heterosexual couples. Like I said, if the government had nothing to do with marriage then not a problem, but the fact that it does is the problem and we either need to open it up or get rid of it, and opening it up is more likely.

Marriage is an institution, voting is not. Just because voting was once not allowed (legally) by women, and it now is, is not justification to change everything that has historical backing. Marriage has existed the way it has for thousands of years for a reason, and that is not being considered by the gay movement.

I'm not saying that since voting has changed then marriage should. I'm saying here's an example of something we thought was wrong and we worked to change it, let's use that lesson and look at marriage. How long it's existed like that is of course somewhat relevant, but it's time for change.

Exactly as it is currently it is not unfair, because they are schools created for females. Whether it should be the case is another matter.

But it's not unfair in the marriage scenario because all men can seek women and all women can seek men. Sexuality and love is irrelevant.

But sexuality and love is relevant for marriage, as it's only heterosexual? So the government cares about only heterosexual couples in terms of marriage. That's not fair.

Why not adjust tax laws to cater for all couples regardless of sex? That why gays have all the same rights and benefits, and marriage maintains it's social purpose in light of families etc. ?

Yes, an option. But there would still be social inclusion/exclusion due to marriage being only for heterosexual couples.

 

[iBibah]

um, how?

- All girls school exists.

- Male wants to join

- They say no

It's not unfair because its a school created for females.

 

[Swaan]

I am acknowledging both. Lesbians and gay couples both cannot make children.

It is only possible via male or female sperm contributions.

Preventing gay couples the right to marry will not make them straight and have kids naturally with the opposite sex. They won't ever have biological kids together, marriage or not, so your reasoning is flawed

 

[snowflakeptical]

- All girls school exists.

- Male wants to join

- They say no

It's not unfair because its a school created for females.

but all boys school exist too
the difference is a female wouldn't want to join...

 

[BLIT2014]

I am acknowledging both. Lesbians and gay couples both cannot make children.

It is only possible via male or female sperm contributions.

Are you religious bro?

 

[teridax]

this is an interesting discussion...

food for thought: do you guys believe that some can be born gay or do you elect yourself to become homosexual once you've become more educationally informed?

 

[snowflakeptical]

this is an interesting discussion...

food for thought: do you guys believe that some can be born gay or do you elect yourself to become homosexual once you've become more educationally informed?

most likely while growing up. I think it's preference. We make our preferences as we grow up

 

[iBibah]

Again because marriage is recognised by the government when it shouldn't be. The purpose of the government is to provide equal opportunity for all, and it's not doing that by allowing marriage only between heterosexual couples. Like I said, if the government had nothing to do with marriage then not a problem, but the fact that it does is the problem and we either need to open it up or get rid of it, and opening it up is more likely.

Well then ask yourself why they recognise it. Because its not simply about love. It's is a social structure to protect children, by providing both parents.

"Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces. It is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children need both a mother and a father. Marriage predates government. It is the fundamental building block of all human civilization. Marriage has public purposes that transcend its private purposes. This is why 41 states, with good reason, affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children. While respecting everyone’s liberty, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for childbearing and childrearing.
Promoting marriage does not ban any type of relationship: Adults are free to make choices about their relationships, and they do not need government sanction or license to do so. All Americans have the freedom to live as they choose, but no one has a right to redefine marriage for everyone else.
In recent decades, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs. This reduces marriage to a system to approve emotional bonds or distribute legal privileges."

I'm not saying that since voting has changed then marriage should. I'm saying here's an example of something we thought was wrong and we worked to change it, let's use that lesson and look at marriage. How long it's existed like that is of course somewhat relevant, but it's time for change.

But with marriage its not just about thinking something is wrong. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. When someone asks if I support same-sex marriage its like they are asking if i support a square-circle.

But sexuality and love is relevant for marriage, as it's only heterosexual? So the government cares about only heterosexual couples in terms of marriage. That's not fair.

Not necessarily, see a gay man can marry a gay woman if he wants. He may not love her, nor be sexually attracted (and her to him), but if they remain faithful to one another (sex or not), no child will be born without both parents.

Yes, an option. But there would still be social inclusion/exclusion due to marriage being only for heterosexual couples.

And exlusion because its only couples. And exclusion because its only for erotic love. And exclusion because....*insert a million other reasons*

Why can't people accept that something is not for them? Create their own institution based on love or whatever they wanna base it on. Take the latin word for love, add "mony" to the end then you have "to make love" as an institution. Why hijack another?

 

[AAEldar]

Well then ask yourself why they recognise it. Because its not simply about love. It's is a social structure to protect children, by providing both parents.

Having gay parents is detrimental?

I don't necessarily have evidence to support otherwise, and I accept that every child needs both male and female role models of some sort, but I do not accept that their parents must be one male and one female.

"Marriage exists to bring a man and a woman together as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children their union produces. It is based on the anthropological truth that men and women are different and complementary, the biological fact that reproduction depends on a man and a woman, and the social reality that children need both a mother and a father. Marriage predates government. It is the fundamental building block of all human civilization. Marriage has public purposes that transcend its private purposes. This is why 41 states, with good reason, affirm that marriage is between a man and a woman.
Government recognizes marriage because it is an institution that benefits society in a way that no other relationship does. Marriage is society’s least restrictive means of ensuring the well-being of children. State recognition of marriage protects children by encouraging men and women to commit to each other and take responsibility for their children. While respecting everyone’s liberty, government rightly recognizes, protects, and promotes marriage as the ideal institution for childbearing and childrearing.
Promoting marriage does not ban any type of relationship: Adults are free to make choices about their relationships, and they do not need government sanction or license to do so. All Americans have the freedom to live as they choose, but no one has a right to redefine marriage for everyone else.
In recent decades, marriage has been weakened by a revisionist view that is more about adults’ desires than children’s needs. This reduces marriage to a system to approve emotional bonds or distribute legal privileges."

Again I accept that it historically comes from a heterosexual point of view, however even as stated in the quote, in recent times it's trended away from that and now it's time the government follows suit.

But with marriage its not just about thinking something is wrong. Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. When someone asks if I support same-sex marriage its like they are asking if i support a square-circle.

Yes technically speaking it's an oxymoron, but that's what I'm arguing for a re-definition, in which case it's not an oxymoron.

Not necessarily, see a gay man can marry a gay woman if he wants. He may not love her, nor be sexually attracted (and her to him), but if they remain faithful to one another (sex or not), no child will be born without both parents.

Don't give me that, that's not marriage. That's two people not living. A gay man wouldn't want to marry a gay woman in most cases. He'd want to marry a gay man that he wants to be committed to, and receive the same recognition that any heterosexual couple would receive. As far as children goes - children aren't pre-requisites for marriage.

And exlusion because its only couples. And exclusion because its only for erotic love. And exclusion because....*insert a million other reasons*

It's about providing the same option to everyone, which is the job of the government. The government has no right to deny an opportunity to someone who was born next to you just because they happen to be gay.

Why can't people accept that something is not for them? Create their own institution based on love or whatever they wanna base it on. Take the latin word for love, add "mony" to the end then you have "to make love" as an institution. Why hijack another?

Because gay couples aren't even given the option, as above. They can't create their own institution because the government is denying them right now. And they don't want their own, they want to be inclusive and have the same institution as everyone else. It's not about hijacking, don't be so naive, it's about having what everyone else has by birthright.

 

[iBibah]

Having gay parents is detrimental?

I don't necessarily have evidence to support otherwise, and I accept that every child needs both male and female role models of some sort, but I do not accept that their parents must be one male and one female.

The intrinsic difference between male and female is irrelevant here, and for another conversation. In the case of marriage, lets consider its purely about physical difference and complementarity, which im sure no one will disagree with.

Again I accept that it historically comes from a heterosexual point of view, however even as stated in the quote, in recent times it's trended away from that and now it's time the government follows suit.

But the fact its trending away is not necessarily a good thing. Instead of making it worse we should aim to restore/maintain it.

Yes technically speaking it's an oxymoron, but that's what I'm arguing for a re-definition, in which case it's not an oxymoron.

No matter what the law says, matrimony will always mean "to make a mother" and no two men or two women can ever do that.

Like I said, fighting the existence of marriage at all is more logical and makes more sense than redefining marriage.

Don't give me that, that's not marriage. That's two people not living. A gay man wouldn't want to marry a gay woman in most cases. He'd want to marry a gay man that he wants to be committed to, and receive the same recognition that any heterosexual couple would receive. As far as children goes - children aren't pre-requisites for marriage.

Yes it is. When two people marry, they commit to love each other for ever. Not love as an emotion, because no one can control their emotions, so how could they promise to love forever. No, it means love as an act of the will, to will the best for someone. (best thing for someone is also subjective) So yes, that IS marriage, and while it doesn't happen often that way (and it shouldnt i agree), there do exist many cases where a party in a marital relationship comes out as gay, and the other spouse is willing to live through it (because vows, and children) Marriages don't become void as soon as you think "they're not living", what a ridiculously subjective thing to say.

Whether procreation occurs or not, marriage still remains primarily about the children. Refer to above posts.

It's about providing the same option to everyone, which is the job of the government. The government has no right to deny an opportunity to someone who was born next to you just because they happen to be gay.

No it's not. There is nothing wrong if an institution is made (and maintained) for heterosexuals. And the reasons for maintaining it I said in above posts so Im not bothered repeating them.

Once again, they're not denied of any opportunity. Marriage as it stands allows everyone to get married.

Because gay couples aren't even given the option, as above. They can't create their own institution because the government is denying them right now. And they don't want their own, they want to be inclusive and have the same institution as everyone else. It's not about hijacking, don't be so naive, it's about having what everyone else has by birthright.

Just because you want something, it doesn't make it your right to have it. It's not naive, its true. Redefining marriage will remove it of any purpose, making it redundant.

 

[liamlolz]

For those against, I have one question for you: how would it actually affect you? Would it cause you any harm?

Side note, why do people always say "What about incest etc?"...that is not what we are debating and in my opinion is a total other debate that does not belong in same set marriage discussions.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[AAEldar]

The intrinsic difference between male and female is irrelevant here, and for another conversation. In the case of marriage, lets consider its purely about physical difference and complementarity, which im sure no one will disagree with.

The intrinsic difference between male and female is irrelevant.... but it's purely about physical difference.

I completely disagree with what you think everyone thinks marriage is about. So do my parents, 99% of my friends, and just about everyone I talk to (yes this is a sample and not the population). They all believe that marriage, now, should be between two people who love each other. Physical difference is no exception.

But the fact its trending away is not necessarily a good thing. Instead of making it worse we should aim to restore/maintain it.

Of course, I'm not arguing that because it's a change it's good. I'm arguing that it's because we as a species have developed and become more understanding that it should change, which in this case would be good.

No matter what the law says, matrimony will always mean "to make a mother" and no two men or two women can ever do that.

I just Googled the definition to see what it is:

"the state of being married"

So the definition has changed since it was first defined. Which is totally possible. I get what you're saying, historically it's come from to make a mother, but it's no longer the case. The root words have meanings themselves, but the word as a whole has a different meaning.

Like I said, fighting the existence of marriage at all is more logical and makes more sense than redefining marriage.

Agreed. But it's less likely.

Yes it is. When two people marry, they commit to love each other for ever. Not love as an emotion, because no one can control their emotions, so how could they promise to love forever. No, it means love as an act of the will, to will the best for someone. (best thing for someone is also subjective) So yes, that IS marriage, and while it doesn't happen often that way (and it shouldnt i agree), there do exist many cases where a party in a marital relationship comes out as gay, and the other spouse is willing to live through it (because vows, and children) Marriages don't become void as soon as you think "they're not living", what a ridiculously subjective thing to say.

Regardless of whether they love each other or not, it's none of the governments business. I maintain that a gay man would marry another gay man if the option was available. And that's the problem. I have friends who have parents who have come out as gay during a marriage and stuck with it. You know why? Because 30 years ago that was unthinkable. Because they feel if they leave now they're destroying their family. Because they fear losing their kids, or their best friend (their partner). They stay because they want to keep things happy, not because they believe marriage is only between heterosexual couples.

Whether procreation occurs or not, marriage still remains primarily about the children. Refer to above posts.

I'll admit even today most couples don't have children until they're married. But marriage isn't a pre-requisite for children, and children aren't a pre-requisite for marriage.

No it's not. There is nothing wrong if an institution is made (and maintained) for heterosexuals. And the reasons for maintaining it I said in above posts so Im not bothered repeating them.

Once again, they're not denied of any opportunity. Marriage as it stands allows everyone to get married.

There's no problem if the institution isn't the government. You're not answering any points about the government.

Marriage allows everyone to get married so long as you don't want to marry someone of the same sex because you happen to be attracted to a person in a way you can never, and would never, change.

Doesn't sound right to put a limit on it.

Just because you want something, it doesn't make it your right to have it. It's not naive, its true. Redefining marriage will remove it of any purpose, making it redundant.

Of course. But look around, 62% of those who voted in Ireland voted in favour of same-sex marriage. 62% as opposed to 38% who voted against. That's a huge margin - 24%. This is not about me wanting it, this is what most people want. Redefining it won't remove it's purpose, it'll just open up it's purpose to those who currently don't have access to it.