Same sex marriages (3 Viewers)

[snowflakeptical]

Same-sex couples should be allowed marriages. A lot of people take marriage for granted, divorcing hardly after a long period of time. So if people agree to be together and give a vow (well nowadays, its easily broken) then why would any of us be in their way. They're going same be with each other either way, regardless if the government tries as much to limit them.
Marriage should be with someone you would want to spend your life with or if you guys mutually support each other. Some people confuse love with infatuation

 

[nerdasdasd]

I disagree with same sex marriage.

As far as the good life is concerned, traditional marriage puts others at the centre - traditional marriage is good for society (society needs), as opposed to gay marriage which is individualistic (I want). These things lie at the heart of the matter - who do you live for - others or yourself, and is morality external to humanity, or is it something we invent as we go along?

 

[BLIT2014]

I'm in the don't want to be married category but think other individuals should be allowed to if they desire.

 

[AAEldar]

The purpose of the institution of marriage is to unite one man and one woman as one (through physical complementarity) in order to produce a child, such that every child has a father and a mother. Now while not all parents have children, under ideal marriage, every child has a father and mother.

Another word for marriage you might have heard is matrimony. Do you know what matrimony means? matri = mother - mony = suffix meaning "to make"

Marriage literally means "to make a mother".

Like I said, even though not all couple have,can have kids, as long as a man is in a marital relationship and remains faithful, he will not produce fatherless children (and by that I mean child who grow up without their father).

Under ideal marriage most children have both parents.

Opposition to same-sex marriage isnt about "not wanting others to be happy" like the lefty above said, though I do admit the existence of crazy "god-hates-fags" people around, nor is it about telling people who to love. Love whoever the hell you want, live with whoever the hell you want, sleep with whoever the hell you want. But marriage exists for a man and a woman.

Marriage as it stands today is exclusion at it's very core. We are excluding gay couples from a right that heterosexual couples have. We might as well not allow people with red hair to marry - it's the exact same principle.

You're right, historically speaking it's between a man and woman. Historically speaking. Historically.

Historically.

It's a new day, get rid of this petty exclusivity surrounding marriage.

I disagree with same sex marriage.

As far as the good life is concerned, traditional marriage puts others at the centre - traditional marriage is good for society (society needs), as opposed to gay marriage which is individualistic (I want). These things lie at the heart of the matter - who do you live for - others or yourself, and is morality external to humanity, or is it something we invent as we go along?

What.

What did you just say? Of course everyone lives for themselves. Gay marriage isn't detrimental to society (I'm inferring from what I believe is your implication), and traditional marriage isn't necessarily good for society. It has benefits, but none of them are to do with love. Why should there be a restriction?

 

[snowflakeptical]

On an obvious scale, yeah I guess society doesn't see a huge gain. But many same-sex couples adopt/ foster children and really make a difference in their lives. I think a person raised by same-sex parents can give more argument on this but I heard from a girl raised by two fathers and she said there's hardly anything she would change growing up. Like yeah, I would adopt but that option wouldn't be in my face.
This is so controversial, I swear if I ask my parents generation, they'll react so negatively

 

[iBibah]

Same-sex couples should be allowed marriages. A lot of people take marriage for granted, divorcing hardly after a long period of time.

Thats because marriage has already been redefined 40 years ago with the introduction of no-fault divorce.

But people's misuse or lack of commitment to marriage is no reason to allow its misuse by another group.

So if people agree to be together and give a vow (well nowadays, its easily broken) then why would any of us be in their way. They're going same be with each other either way, regardless if the government tries as much to limit them.

The government no allowing same-sex marriage is not them trying to stop people being together. The government couldn't care less who you're with, who you love or who you sleep with with. But laws are created to protect societies and opposition to same-sex marriage is based on the idea same-sex couples cannot get married, because marriage is....(refer to previous post).

Marriage should be with someone you would want to spend your life with or if you guys mutually support each other. Some people confuse love with infatuation

Me and my little brother are close. I love him very much and support him (and vice versa) and we want to spend the rest of our lives together. just chilling and travelling together etc.

Can we get married?

 

[nerdasdasd]

What.

What did you just say? Of course everyone lives for themselves. Gay marriage isn't detrimental to society (I'm inferring from what I believe is your implication), and traditional marriage isn't necessarily good for society. It has benefits, but none of them are to do with love. Why should there be a restriction?

Same sex parents cannot procreate. They need to undergo IVF and new birth technology.

The sexual union of different sex couples is what reproduces the human race. If same sex couples want to reproduce, they would put a strain on current health systems (if it were mainstream).

 

[iBibah]

Marriage as it stands today is exclusion at it's very core. We are excluding gay couples from a right that heterosexual couples have. We might as well not allow people with red hair to marry - it's the exact same principle.

You're right, historically speaking it's between a man and woman. Historically speaking. Historically.

Historically.

It's a new day, get rid of this petty exclusivity surrounding marriage.

No it doesn't exclude anyone. Anyone get married. If you're a man, you can marry a woman, and if you're a woman you can marry a man.

The institution's existence is based on procreation (refer to "matrimony" above) and the granting of both parents for any children born. So to enter a marital relationship as a man, you must seek a women. (or a woman seeking a man). If something is created for a purpose, then it is for all those who can fulfill that purpose.

As a male I want to be educated at an all-girls school. Oh wait, it's a school created for the purpose of educating girls, and so the criteria is that you must be a female to join. Discrimination?

 

[snowflakeptical]

Can we get married?

I'm pretty sure being siblings is already a connection. No need to tie it

 

[iBibah]

We are excluding gay couples from a right that heterosexual couples have

Hold on why only extend it to same-sex couples? what about thruples (or triads), what about me and my brother mentioned in the post above?

What principle are you appealing to so as ONLY to extend it to same-sex couples?

 

[iBibah]

I'm pretty sure being siblings is already a connection. No need to tie it

How dare someone refuse me the right to publicly declare my relationship to my brother? Not to mention all the legal problems arising when one of us dies because siblings are not recognised like married couples. Plus all those tax benefits we can't receive :/

 

[snowflakeptical]

How dare someone refuse me the right to publicly declare my relationship to my brother? Not to mention all the legal problems arising when one of us dies because siblings are not recognised like married couples. Plus all those tax benefits we can't receive :/

oh tragic....
You know fortune can go to siblings too aka next of kin, you know show appreciation to siblings

 

[AAEldar]

Same sex parents cannot procreate. They need to undergo IVF and new birth technology.

The sexual union of different sex couples is what reproduces the human race. If same sex couples want to reproduce, they would put a strain on current health systems (if it were mainstream).

You're right, they can't procreate. New birth technology? How amazing does that sound. Human progression, that's what we want. At least I do.

Strain on the current health system? I'm not buying into that at all. The technology will develop, and the cost will go down and the amount of people providing the service will go up.

No it doesn't exclude anyone. Anyone get married. If you're a man, you can marry a woman, and if you're a woman you can marry a man.

The institution's existence is based on procreation (refer to "matrimony" above) and the granting of both parents for any children born. So to enter a marital relationship as a man, you must seek a women. (or a woman seeking a man). If something is created for a purpose, then it is for all those who can fulfill that purpose.

As a male I want to be educated at an all-girls school. Oh wait, it's a school created for the purpose of educating girls, and so the criteria is that you must be a female to join. Discrimination?

"Anyone can get married" - well yes, in the sense that a gay man can marry a woman, but that's a huge technicality and completely not the point. Not everyone can get married. Two gay men can't marry.

Yes the existence of marriage is based on a heterosexual couple forming a family. I accept this. It's dated. Like women not being able to vote. Like black people not being able to vote. Words can be re-purposed. Institutions can be re-purposed.

I work in education, and I at a certain level disagree with single gender schools. That's a different debate however.

Hold on why only extend it to same-sex couples? what about thruples (or triads), what about me and my brother mentioned in the post above?

What principle are you appealing to so as ONLY to extend it to same-sex couples?

I think polygamy, or multi-people marriages, should be legal. They're all adults, they can decide. If it falls apart? Not my problem.

Incest? As long as they're not bearing offspring it's fine by me********. As soon as they want children then that's different - that's tantamount to abuse. It's not fair, genetically speaking, to bring a child into the world like that. *******Note that I would need to elaborate more on this, I'm simplifying HUGELY, incest is a totally different ball game*

Would I take part in polygamy or incest? Nope, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. Just like being gay.

 

[classicjimbo]

for same sex marriage coz i'm not a religious lunatic or obsessed with oppressing fellow citizens

but I don't think that churches or religious institutions should be forced to host these weddings or perform them

This belief that marriage is about two people who love each other is incorrect. While love plays a part, its not the sole/most significant factor. If it was then why would the government regulate it?

because aus is still a bit shit at separation of church and state

The purpose of the institution of marriage is to unite one man and one woman as one (through physical complementarity) in order to produce a child, such that every child has a father and a mother. Now while not all parents have children, under ideal marriage, every child has a father and mother.

Another word for marriage you might have heard is matrimony. Do you know what matrimony means? matri = mother - mony = suffix meaning "to make"

Marriage literally means "to make a mother".

Like I said, even though not all couple have,can have kids, as long as a man is in a marital relationship and remains faithful, he will not produce fatherless children (and by that I mean child who grow up without their father).

Under ideal marriage most children have both parents.

Opposition to same-sex marriage isnt about "not wanting others to be happy" like the lefty above said, though I do admit the existence of crazy "god-hates-fags" people around, nor is it about telling people who to love. Love whoever the hell you want, live with whoever the hell you want, sleep with whoever the hell you want. But marriage exists for a man and a woman.

'>but muh latin!!!!2121!'
hahahaha you're a weird unit m8

marriage exists for whatever the majority decides it should exist for simple as that
so yes right now marriage exists just for man and woman but it can and will change

I disagree with same sex marriage.

As far as the good life is concerned, traditional marriage puts others at the centre - traditional marriage is good for society (society needs), as opposed to gay marriage which is individualistic (I want). These things lie at the heart of the matter - who do you live for - others or yourself, and is morality external to humanity, or is it something we invent as we go along?

ahahaha wtf is "the good life"????? you're such a silly cunt

please try again and tell me exactly why gay marriage is bad for society
bonus points for not mentioning 'da slippery slope of degeneracy@!!'

 

[BLIT2014]

http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/1504/

 

[iBibah]

oh tragic....
You know fortune can go to siblings too aka next of kin, you know show appreciation to siblings

You're missing this point.

You see every reason the "for same-sex marriage" people use, can be applied to any other couple, or group of people. In future marriage will only become redundant once you separate it from its purpose.

 

[snowflakeptical]

I have read a questions and answers on a guy who is gay marrying his best friend(girl) and having a family with her but still having relations with men. He got praised for being 'mature, self-controlled and kind'
Based on this, should people attracted to the same-sex be like this when they do want to settle down, get married and have children? It's like using the marriage partner to meet societal expectations.
Also Im pretty sure to adopt kids, the couple must present a stable relationship and most likely have to be married

 

[classicjimbo]

You're missing this point.

You see every reason the "for same-sex marriage" people use, can be applied to any other couple, or group of people. In future marriage will only become redundant once you separate it from its purpose.

yes it can
and marriage won't change to accommodate those unless the majority decide they're suddenly okay with pedophiles or people trying to marry goats (protip 95% people aren't!)

 

[Examine]

Same sex parents cannot procreate. They need to undergo IVF and new birth technology.

The sexual union of different sex couples is what reproduces the human race. If same sex couples want to reproduce, they would put a strain on current health systems (if it were mainstream).

So are you saying that you are against same sex marriage as they can't procreate? Does that mean that you believe that marriages without children are not considered valid as well?

Not even gonna comment on the bolded

 

[iBibah]

"Anyone can get married" - well yes, in the sense that a gay man can marry a woman, but that's a huge technicality and completely not the point. Not everyone can get married. Two gay men can't marry.

Precisely. The marital relationship exists for a man to seek a woman and vice versa. That's it. If you do not fulfill these requirements then move along.

Yes the existence of marriage is based on a heterosexual couple forming a family. I accept this. It's dated. Like women not being able to vote. Like black people not being able to vote. Words can be re-purposed. Institutions can be re-purposed.

How can you compare those to voting? Not the same. Anyone can technically vote, but the law restricted certain people. However, not everyone can marry given what marriage intrinsically is.

I work in education, and I at a certain level disagree with single gender schools. That's a different debate however.

I didn't ask if you agree with it. I asked if it was unfair for me to be refused entry into an all-girls school? Please answer this question.

I think polygamy, or multi-people marriages, should be legal. They're all adults, they can decide. If it falls apart? Not my problem.
Incest? As long as they're not bearing offspring it's fine by me********. As soon as they want children then that's different - that's tantamount to abuse. It's not fair, genetically speaking, to bring a child into the world like that. *******Note that I would need to elaborate more on this, I'm simplifying HUGELY, incest is a totally different ball game*

Would I take part in polygamy or incest? Nope, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. Just like being gay.

It's not a sexual relationship with my brother, I just love him as a brother and wanna spend my life with him.

So you think polygamy and multi-person marriages should be legal, and incest (i understand it was simplified here).

So pretty much any two or more people can enter into a marital relationship.

So whats the point of marriage then? It has become redundant and useless if itserves no purpose.