12 reasons same-sex marriage will destroy our great Society

Status
Not open for further replies.
Argh! Dont you hate it when you make a reply and the page jumps at the last second, deleting it all.

1) Because God says so 2) Because homosexuals can't make babies. 3) Because it isn't what marriage is about
Click to expand...

I dont agree with the reasoning in either 1 and 2. I am under the partial umbrella of #3. First off, to reiterate, I have no problems with homosexuals. I support their drive to receive equal legal rights and acceptance from many in society. I think that a seperate title for a homosexual union isnt something to be scoffed at, but an opportunity to be welcomed. I will be the first to admit that modern day marriage is royally screwed. Unless I am mistaken, there is around a 40% divorce rate. However, that does not mean all married couples take the title so lightly. If homosexuals could create a new tradition and manage to keep a low divorce %, then I feel many heterosexuals would become jealous, instead of vice versa. I am not proposing that homosexuals be treated differently at all, just that they use a different name to define their union.

My apologies.
Click to expand...
And mine to you. I realize that you are normally not the type to insult anybody. I was caught up in the moment (as I'm sure you were as well) and was rather upset that more people chose to attack me instead of my views. If anything, I should have replied to yours first and held off the others for later.
 
Look, I've watched this thread grow and grow, and I think it's time to say somethin that nobody has been willing to say/realized.

THE REASON THAT HOMOSEXUAL COUPLES SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO MARRY IS BECAUSE THEY ARE IN LOVE.

Everyone out there who can't sympathize with the plight of gays and lesbians, imagine this. You're gay- no, better yet, you're straight, but 90% of the world is gay. You can't help it that you're straight. It's not your fault, you didn't make a choice, it's not even a bad thing. However, the gay 90% demonizes you, shuns you, forbids you to be openly in love or get married, and refuses to recognize you as a legitimate person. Feels pretty shitty, eh?

Now flip that around, and you can see how THEY feel. So far, the only argument that's actually understandable against gay marriage is to "keep with tradition". The others on this forum have already shot those arguments to hell; I'm not gonna waste time disproving them. However, it seems as if none of the pro-gay-marriage members really understand something, that something being that the reason that gays should be allowed to marry is because gays are exactly like us. I go to a high school which is incredibly openminded, where all the students are proud of who they are, where people are open with others. Needless to say, I live in MA. But that's beside the point. If you actually talk to someone who's GLBT, and listen, and try to see from their point of view, you'll realize just how bad things are for them. Just give it a try.
 
Good post.


Like to quote this part in particular:

"you're straight, but 90% of the world is gay. You can't help it that you're straight. It's not your fault, you didn't make a choice, it's not even a bad thing. However, the gay 90% demonizes you, shuns you, forbids you to be openly in love or get married, and refuses to recognize you as a legitimate person. Feels pretty shitty, eh?"


Very good way of stateing it in my opinion. :)
 
I hold the belief that marriage is an union designed for a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

Marriage isn't an empty institution defined solely by what couples it EXCLUDES. Marriage is ABOUT something: about mutual support, commitment, joint lives, etc. If you want to claim that marriage is simply an institution designed for a penis and vagina then you empty it of all meaning: destroying marriage in order to "save" it from homosexuals. If, on the other hand, you admit that marriage has actual meaning beyond just pairings of genetalia, then you would be forced to admit that homosexual desire and can appreciate those unions just as much as straight couples.
 
Very good point (although you did give me this horrid image of a man-sized phallus in a tux and a woman-sized vagina in a gown walking to the alter)
 
marksmanHL2 :) said:
:
"you're straight, but 90% of the world is gay. You can't help it that you're straight. It's not your fault, you didn't make a choice, it's not even a bad thing. However, the gay 90% demonizes you, shuns you, forbids you to be openly in love or get married, and refuses to recognize you as a legitimate person. Feels pretty shitty, eh?"
Click to expand...
You make it seem like gays are being in any way looked down upon by either seinfeld or myself... we dont have any kind of motive for that, its simply illogical. Theres no prejudice, or bias going on.

Sure I oppose gay marriage. Do I oppose gay PEOPLE? No... why should I? Why is it ASSUMED that because I oppose something, that its discrimination. It simply assumes the worst in people, and coming from a side traditionally FOR the people.

As for calling seinfeld bigoted.. thats absurd, really. The gay marriage movement is what.. 20-30 years old? Was everybody BEFORE that time as bigoted as seinfeld? Maybe common sense dictates these unions... why would the government make an insitution that would not stand the test of time? If everybody was gay, wouldent the human race as a whole die? I'm not a religious man (though I have the courtesy to acknowledge those who are), but reason without at least accounting for THE MAJORITIES belief is just not right. Why should the minorities subculture be imposed upon the mainstream? Does nobody see the benefits of traditional marriage? I see the whole gay marriage movement as a quest for, what they view as, equal rights, on scope of black peoples struggles for the past 200 years. But equating this new movement to slavery, or civil rights, is absolutely amazing.
 
Benefits of traditional marriage? I thought the whole point was that people were recognising those so called benefits and think that homosexuals should have a right to them, what with all this equality stuff.

Heteros wouldn't be forced aside to cater for the gay "subculture" as you seem to put it- they'd just have to share a privilege with them.

Personally, I don't care too much about the classification, but I can understand why some people think seperate terms would encourage segregation.
 
Edcrab said:
Benefits of traditional marriage? I thought the whole point was that people were recognising those so called benefits and think that homosexuals should have a right to them, what with all this equality stuff.

Heteros wouldn't be forced aside to cater for the gay "subculture" as you seem to put it- they'd just have to share a privilege with them.

Personally, I don't care too much about the classification, but I can understand why some people think seperate terms would encourage segregation.
Click to expand...
Gay marriage advocates arent after the RIGHTS of marriage, I'm perfectly willing to agree with that, but the contest is over the word marriage.
 
I still don't understand why the "Tradtion of marriage" is so important to anyone, especially when its still a loving couple, and its not going to affect your life at all.
 
Well, you could argue that the advocates are after the rights of marriage, considering the semi-religious wafflers trying to block the movement.

I can see either side of the arguement- I don't see it as such a big issue. At least a "Civil Union" would be partway to equality.

You could still refer to it as "marriage", of course... "Yes, Jim and I are married". No one would say "Yes, Doris and I underwent Civil Unification". Sounds like some sort of mysterious science-fiction political process- I could picture the Combine trying to do that to people.
 
I still don't understand why the "Tradtion of marriage" is so important to anyone, especially when its still a loving couple, and its not going to affect your life at all.
Click to expand...

Do you hold traditions that are dear to you?
 
marksmanHL2 :) said:
Good post.


Like to quote this part in particular:

"you're straight, but 90% of the world is gay. You can't help it that you're straight. It's not your fault, you didn't make a choice, it's not even a bad thing. However, the gay 90% demonizes you, shuns you, forbids you to be openly in love or get married, and refuses to recognize you as a legitimate person. Feels pretty shitty, eh?"


Very good way of stateing it in my opinion. :)
Click to expand...


I agree. I used to hate gay marrage with a passion, until I had a similar thought to that. Now I think it's very stupid when someone says "Oh that movie was so gay!". If they want to be gay, that's them, they should be allowed to.
 
seinfeldrules said:
Do you hold traditions that are dear to you?
Click to expand...

Yep, but i wouldnt hesitate to alter them if it made a worthy group/or individual far happier, centimental feelings are not as important as that.
 
Yep, but i wouldnt hesitate to alter them if it made a worthy group/or individual far happier, centimental feelings are not as important as that.
Click to expand...
Would you be willing to change the tradition for millions of others simultaneously? Who decides who is worthy?
 
Yes, "that's the way it has always been" does seem a rather weak arguement. If anyone can truly say that their own union to a loved one is ruined by such a progression they must be insane.

"Ah, this is such a perfect day Timothy... or at least it would be if those dirty fags couldn't do the exact same thing too!!"

And it would be the exact same thing in all but name, so arguing over the moniker does seem a bit petty to me. Bigots will oppose the motion whatever happens, and I suspect many will be greatful even if the process does get a daft term like "Civil Union" to contend with.
 
And it would be the exact same thing in all but name, so arguing over the moniker does seem a bit petty to me. Bigots will oppose the motion whatever happens, and I suspect many will be greatful even if the process does get a daft term like "Civil Union" to content with.
Click to expand...

I dont think anybody would object to a name to replace 'civil union'. Somebody just needs to stand up and name it!
 
seinfeldrules said:
Would you be willing to change the tradition for millions of others simultaneously? Who decides who is worthy?
Click to expand...

but that was my point; I can't see why the 'millions' of others would care that much... :\
 
For the evolutionists, I'm sure roaming around indulging in widespread, ethics-free sex was very popular with our ancestors, but civillisation throttled this with morals and the reduced need to reproduce so frequently.

And don't say it's a far smaller issue than the above, because if it really is, why does it matter what happens?
 
Greedy? Possibly. But then you could argue that those (apparently) prizing tradition over human issues are even more selfish than the people getting angsty over semantics.
 
Greedy? Possibly. But then you could argue that those (apparently) prizing tradition over human issues are even more selfish than the people getting angsty over semantics.
Click to expand...
One side is preventing the other from using the word marriage.
The other is willing to completely alter a tradition that millions hold dear.

Its a two way street. In either case, somebody's feelings will get hurt. If people in support of 'normal' marriage shouldnt hold it dear, why should others?
 
Completely alter? No, they wouldn't be changing the core principles of marriage, just that they can be applied to two people who happen to be of the same gender.

Those willing to change this tradition that millions of people cling to for no apparent reason just want to be classified the same as those millions of people.

Equality is a concept that I'm sure more Americans hold dear then some antiquated, overrated ceremony that's already ripe with hypocrisy.
 
I just thought of this. Wouldnt their be as much relation between the gay marriage debate and Israel as there is between gay marriage and the civil rights movement?

Completely alter?
Click to expand...
Yes. Changing from woman and man to man/man woman/woman is quite an alteration.

Equality is a concept that I'm sure more Americans hold dear then some antiquated, overrated ceremony that's already ripe with hypocrisy
Click to expand...
If there wasnt an alternative, I would agree with this. However, there is an option.
 
seinfeldrules said:
One side is preventing the other from using the word marriage.
The other is willing to completely alter a tradition that millions hold dear.

Its a two way street. In either case, somebody's feelings will get hurt. If people in support of 'normal' marriage shouldnt hold it dear, why should others?
Click to expand...

I'm not saying they shouldnt hold it dear, I'm just saying it would be nice to "share" it, and stop being so damn elitist, I get the feeling that people "these days" think a straight person is better than a gay one.
Then they go and rattle off about "freedom"...
 
Well, the Israel/Palestine situation is fairly relevant, in an ethical sense.

Both controversies regard ultimately minor issues that need to be resolved for the good of all involved. I can, for example, think of a hundred things to criticise both Israel and Palestine over, just as I can see both sides of this arguement. Not that anyone involved is ever going to change their mind, but that's why we have a Politics forum.

Oh, and this should really be taken to IRC, considering the rate that we're all posting and editing ;)

I still don't think amending "marriage" is the same as rewriting its precepts, however.
 
I'm not saying they shouldnt hold it dear, I'm just saying it would be nice to "share" it, and stop being so damn elitist, I get the feeling that people "these days" think a straight person is better than a gay one.
Then they go and rattle off about "freedom"...
Click to expand...
I cant comment on a type of person I have never met.
 
Its like humans enjoy grabbing onto tiny, meaningless scraps in the hope of being able to compare themselves with each other, to be judged and given a place... I guess thats what we are
 
Both contreversies regard ultimately minor issues that need to be resolved for the good of all involved. I can, for example, think of a hundred things to criticise both Israel and Palestine over, just as I can see both sides of this arguement. Not that anyone involved is ever going to change their mind, but that's why we have a Politics forum.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I had another train of thought on Israel, but I lost it over the last 5 minutes :/ .
 
bliink said:
Its like humans enjoy grabbing onto tiny, meaningless scraps in the hope of being able to compare themselves with each other, to be judged and given a place... I guess thats what we are
Click to expand...
Hell I say we just all kill ourselves and get it over with.

Whose in?!?!
 
Its like humans enjoy grabbing onto tiny, meaningless scraps in the hope of being able to compare themselves with each other, to be judged and given a place... I guess thats what we are
Click to expand...

Hence, my computer is better than yours! ;)

Whose in?!?!
Click to expand...
You first! :afro:
 
Well, I suppose that's a very good point- if it really is such a minor issue, why do any of us care how this all develops?

The thing is, I'm sure the "discomfort" brought down on the traditionalists opposing the expansion of the concept of marriage will be far less than the proportional joy of the new branch of society that can partake in it.
 
Edcrab said:
Well, I suppose that's a very good point- if it really is such a minor issue, why do any of us care how this all develops?
Click to expand...
Because people like to bitch about things that doesn't affect their lives.
 
That's also an accurate statement.

To summarise- with the two people getting it on in your signature, why does one appear to have had their legs cut off at the knee?
 
7. Same-sex marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

So true, never thought of it before though.
 
Edcrab said:
That's also an accurate statement.

To summarise- with the two people getting it on in your signature, why does one appear to have had their legs cut off at the knee?
Click to expand...
:LOL:

That was the most random question I've read today.

To answer- I don't know....

Edit:They don't have knees! :O
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
Gabe Newell's AMA summary (January 17, 2017)
Replies
1
Views
24K
Gerzowktz
Gerzowktz
B
Community Interviews: Final Exchange development team
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
-smash-
Using Unity at Valve - Vision Summit 2016
Replies
5
Views
6K
Ennui
Ennui
B
Community Interviews: Tony Newton, co-creator of Redemption
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
sharkyshu
Concerns and Thoughts over future Half Life game/s/
Replies
11
Views
2K
SpotEnemyBoats
SpotEnemyBoats
Back
Top