Should same sex marriages be legal?

[CrazyHarij]

Yes, but no adoption.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

No, what I proposed would be insane. Society would collapse without a solid grasp on wording and such.

No, not society. Just you.
You're free to mangle the english language in any way you want.

There is no law whatsoever against walking into a seven-eleven and ordering a frank-ream of cola.

Just don't expect to be a great conversationalist.

Edit: I just realised a stupid thing I should have realised earlier: There are already large groups of people who use strange words to describe things:

Every other language in the universe.

Yup, society just imploded. Oh noes!

 

[Neutrino]

Well the dictionary contradicted itself then.

No it didn't. It said marriage is between a man and a woman or marriage is between two people of the same sex. There is no contridiction, it was only clarifying that it is both.

Anyway, it demonstrates the point that no single group controls or owns the definition of marriage. They of course are willing to keep their own definition within their group. No one is stopping them from doing that. However, they can't force their own definition on other groups.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Well the dictionary contradicted itself then.

Are you attempting to change the definition in the dictionary?

Last time I checked in a dictionary, marriage can be between anyone of any sex.

 

[seinfeldrules]

No, not society. Just you

Yes society, these liberal mov'ts have moved too far. Where will they stop next? Maybe criminals deserve the right to wander the streets. Why should the US discriminate against them for commiting crimes.

 

[f|uke]

light isnt dark

A Buddhist might disagree with you there. Someways the ying is the yang.

 

[Neutrino]

Yes society, these liberal mov'ts have moved too far. Where will they stop next? Maybe criminals deserve the right to wander the streets. Why should the US discriminate against them for commiting crimes.

Comparing gays to criminals is not a logical argument. It is like comparing apples to oranges, to use a common cliche.

Criminals harm other people with their actions. Gays do not.

 

[oldagerocker]

Personally i come from a Christian background, i was bought up a Christian by my parents and grandparents and sure, maybe this has rubbed off on me alittle but i'm not religious, i dont see myself as a Christian.
I find this a very hard topic to comment on, there's always the fear of being branded a homophobe just because you don't believe that homosexuals should be 'married' and one must choose words carefully, i find people are quick to jump onto witch-hunting trains of thought much akin to flaming someone for being a 'cs newbie'.

Now to my point; i dont believe homosexuals should be married in the same way heterosexuals should. This is not because one partnership is any more or less successful than the other and im not bringing morals into this, people define their own morals and live by them, the Government should set standards and police crime but people shouldn't be told what to do or not do if it doesn't harm anyone else.
So sure deep down i beleive that homosexual relationships behind closed doors are fine and dandy.... but not marriage.

Society needs to have some structure, there needs to be some common ground between people for it to work, a value consensus. A shared belief. This was true of earlier western societies where Homosexuality was hated by over-zealous leaders and those in power, in most countries it was illegal. Lately society has become more open, homosexuality is no longer illegal, violent films are shown earlier on on television, divorce has increased, violence and swearing and promiscuity is rampant throughout society and there has generally, in my view, been a break down in peoples respect for others and the rules.

Marriage needs to be kept as a sacred word refering to a man and woman being in love and in the eyes of God (if they so wish) and the law becoming united. This is what society is there for, procreation. People marry to provide secure and loving homes for their children both financially and emotionally.

Sure homosexual parents can care for kids, they can adopt or have surragate babies but i dont think society should promote this, this is not the familly structure i dont believe is natural for a child to grow up in or to have to explain why all the other kids have moms or dads and he/she doesn't when they start school.

Sure bring on 'Civil Union', but keep the word 'Marriage' for those helping to structure the society around a core, founded, natural set of values, be them expressed in religion through the centuries.

Im really tired, if i dont make any sense, ignore this post, im half asleep.

 

[FoB_Ed]

No


Some scholar editing the dictionary doesn't determine the laws of marriage

 

[seinfeldrules]

BTW I am out for the night. Sleep deprevation is getting to me.

 

[ShadowFox]

Yes society, these liberal mov'ts have moved too far. Where will they stop next? Maybe criminals deserve the right to wander the streets. Why should the US discriminate against them for commiting crimes.

The difference is, homosexuals marrying doesn't hurt anybody, while crime does.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Yes society, these liberal mov'ts have moved too far. Where will they stop next? Maybe criminals deserve the right to wander the streets. Why should the US discriminate against them for commiting crimes.

Right. Us liberals have gone too far by allowing other languages to exist.

Next thing you know, we'll sic liberal dingoes on your babies!

Like I said, anyone can speak any way they want. It's just that no-one really deviates from the norm because it's more sensible to speak in ways that everyone can understand. That's why the dictionary is a guideline, not a law. There's no reason whatsoever for language to be enforced.

The only way society would break down in your imaginary world is if everyone spontaneously dropped all common sense with respects to communication.

Bad can mean good sometimes. The english langauge is constantly evolving.

If you want to stay in the past, you're free to. But don't hold everyone else back.

 

[joule]

Absolutely not.

Marriage should be only between a man and a woman.

 

[CrazyHarij]

Absolutely not.

Marriage should be only between a man and a woman.

What makes you think this? What exactly is there that's so intimidating about a gay couple taking it one step closer? They're not affecting anyone else, and it means alot to "them".

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Absolutely not.

Marriage should be only between a man and a woman.

Well, since it's been ascertained that there is absolutely no secular reason to ban gay marriage, why do you think your religion supercedes other people's?

 

[joule]

What makes you think this? What exactly is there that's so intimidating about a gay couple taking it one step closer? They're not affecting anyone else, and it means alot to "them".

I just believe that that's the way it should be. I don't want to go into detail all that much. I just want to see that it is wrong. It has been this way for hundreds and hundreds of years by "normal" people. Between man and woman. It shouldn't change. Sorry, but I am not too fond of gay people.
We all have our own opinions on this certain debatable subject, and this is mine.

 

[Ikerous]

it has been this way for hundreds and hundreds of years by "normal" people.

Because if things have just always been like that
It must be the right thing :rolling:
So much for womens rights and slavery

 

[Mechagodzilla]

I just believe that that's the way it should be. I don't want to go into detail all that much. I just want to see that it is wrong. It has been this way for hundreds and hundreds of years by "normal" people. Between man and woman. It shouldn't change. Sorry, but I am not too fond of gay people.

So, you are a homophobe.

Gay people have existed longer than society has. Definitely longer than a few hundred years.

Let's try this experiment in wordplay:

Why should the jewish never marry?

I just believe that that's the way it should be. I don't want to go into detail all that much. I just want to see that it is wrong. It has been this way for hundreds and hundreds of years by "normal" people. Between aryan people. It shouldn't change. Sorry, but I am not too fond of the jewish people.

Wow, change a few words, and suddenly you might sound like a real bastard. Fancy that.

 

[Neutrino]

the Government should set standards and police crime but people shouldn't be told what to do or not do if it doesn't harm anyone else.

I agree.

Society needs to have some structure, there needs to be some common ground between people for it to work, a value consensus. A shared belief. This was true of earlier western societies where Homosexuality was hated by over-zealous leaders and those in power, in most countries it was illegal. Lately society has become more open, homosexuality is no longer illegal, violent films are shown earlier on on television, divorce has increased, violence and swearing and promiscuity is rampant throughout society and there has generally, in my view, been a break down in peoples respect for others and the rules.

Here you are trying to draw a correlation between tolerance of homosexuality and violence on television, divorce, violence, swearing, promiscious behavior, and disrespect of for other people.

Trying to judge homosexuality through a wrongful association with other things is not a very rational stance I don't think.

Let's look at what else has happened over the years at the same time. Women gained the right to vote and are becoming more equal in our society, laws against blacks have been repealed and there is much less discrimination against them, and tolerance for homosexuality has increased. These would be the correct associations to make in my opinion.

Marriage needs to be kept as a sacred word refering to a man and woman being in love and in the eyes of God (if they so wish) and the law becoming united.

Purely one religions stance on the subject. It should not be forced on all people. Also, marriage is not universally "being in love in the eyes of God". I'm an atheist and I can get married, so there does not have to be any God involved.

This is what society is there for, procreation. People marry to provide secure and loving homes for their children both financially and emotionally.

Marriage is not just about children. Many people get married but never have kids. What about people that are infertile? Should we tell them they can't marry too?

Sure homosexual parents can care for kids, they can adopt or have surragate babies but i dont think society should promote this, this is not the familly structure i dont believe is natural for a child to grow up in or to have to explain why all the other kids have moms or dads and he/she doesn't when they start school.

I don't really wish to get into this as it's not really the issue in this thread. However, are single parents a good "family structure"? Are you against them?

Sure bring on 'Civil Union', but keep the word 'Marriage' for those helping to structure the society around a core, founded, natural set of values, be them expressed in religion through the centuries.

It is not a "natural" set of values. It is merely one group's set of values. Not everyone shares these values.

I don't see how anyone can argue the point that one religion or belief system can force their values on another religion or belief system. It just doesn't make sense.

Im really tired, if i dont make any sense, ignore this post, im half asleep.

Sorry, I just couldn't ignore it as it helped me make some points I wanted to make anyway.

No


Some scholar editing the dictionary doesn't determine the laws of marriage

That wasn't the point. I only quoted that in response to someone saying that the dictionary said marriage was between a man and a women. The point was that no single group can determine the "laws of marriage" for everyone in this country.

 

[joule]

So, you are a homophobe.

Gay people have existed longer than society has. Definitely longer than a few hundred years.

Let's try this experiment in wordplay:

Why should the jewish never marry?



Wow, change a few words, and suddenly you might sound like a real bastard. Fancy that.

I knew I should never have posted in this thread in the first place. People tend to get real serious and snappy when it comes to this. Especially Mechagodzilla. Chill out, man. It's my opinion. Everyone has one. Respect it.

 

[Prince of China]

If a gay couple where to have kids, the assholes at school would torture them for having two 'mothers' or 'fathers'. They're all little shits and nowadays, kids use the word 'fag' homo out of context. Some 'gangster' in my Tech Ed 9 class, called me and my friends a '******' for not helping. We weren't assholes or anything, but he didn't listen to the teacher. Anyways, I got rid of the problem and I would've made another thread about this asshole or just describe him in this thread, but that would be straying from this thread.

 

[f|uke]

It was already stated in this thread, but gay couples DO have kids. And man, I had a normal family and I still got the snot teased out of me as a kid.

Keep fightin the good fight, Neutrino

 

[Prince of China]

Or you gay? Just wondering. Why were you teased?

 

[f|uke]

Uh. No.
I was teased because I was quiet, shy, tall, white, had crappy clothes, sucked at sports, whatever... kids tease kids. Thats life. I still turned out fine.

Now if the question is adoption, you ask a kid if he'd rather be in an orphanage, with uncaring foster parents, or in a loving, structured, secure family that just happens to be gay,. what do you think that kid will chose?

 

[RMachucaA]

MARRIGE in itself is a constitution between a MAN and a WOMAN... if gay couples want to unite, superglue them, i dont give a hoot, but DONT CALL IT MARRIAGE because it isnt.... Marriage was constituded to unite a man and a woman, and it was made around the ideology that gay or lesbian are unholy, which, in my opinion, they are not only unholy, but are naturally wrong. People who say they where born gay, have been brainwashed by their own feble spirituality....



Want to know why there wherent any cases of gay cavemen....... they where the first to be killed off by animals or other cavemen... natural selection does its job.

 

[Ikerous]

they are not only unholy, but are naturally wrong

There are quite a lot of examples of homoeroticism in the animal kindom.. therefore making it natural.. (Geez, watch the daily show, gay penguins man)

People who say they where born gay, have been brainwashed by their own feble spirituality

Actually they probably were born gay.. it most likely has something to do with the hormone levels in the womb...

 

[Viperidae]

Marriage was constituded to unite a man and a woman, and it was made around the ideology that gay or lesbian are unholy, which, in my opinion, they are not only unholy, but are naturally wrong.

Want to know why there wherent any cases of gay cavemen....... they where the first to be killed off by animals or other cavemen... natural selection does its job.

1. If by 'naturally' you mean the physiology of each sex were created specifically to reproduce with the opposite, then how do you explain gays? Unnatural? It's all happening inside the womb, just like with any other kind of baby. There isn't some subjective force somewhere that makes a child gay. It is something that happens in nature. Even with animals. There are reptiles, crustaceans, amphibians (even a mammal, I think) that have individuals change sex depending on the pressures of it's ecosystem. Are they unnatural? No. Gays may not naturally change sex, but they are psychologically and mentally attracted to the different sex than originally intended. How are they 'unnatural' while the prior mentioned animals are the same (attracted to the sex that they used to be), quite naturally?

2. You contadict yourself. What does natural selection mean? It is the elimination of an unnecesary/obsolete trait in the DNA of a species. It's, what, tens of thousands of years later, and there are gays. If there were any gay cavemen: guess what, they were probably discriminated against just like they are today.

 

[Neutrino]

MARRIGE in itself is a constitution between a MAN and a WOMAN... if gay couples want to unite, superglue them, i dont give a hoot, but DONT CALL IT MARRIAGE because it isnt.... Marriage was constituded to unite a man and a woman, and it was made around the ideology that gay or lesbian are unholy

What about people that don't share your religion? How about me, an atheist? How about someone who to you is worshiping "false gods"?

Myself and these people are not "holy" by your definition either. Are you saying we shouldn't be able to marry either?

The rest of your post is hardly even worth responding to and other's have already pointed out where it's wrong, so I won't bother.

 

[f|uke]

People who say they where born gay, have been brainwashed by their own feble spirituality....

Nuttin like a healthy dose of irony

 

[oldagerocker]

"What about people that are infertile? Should we tell them they can't marry too?"
No, i think i badly phrased my point. Society in my view acts to procreate itself, to keep itself the same over the generations. It does change as you mentioned above, with equality changes and revolution. Therefore for society to promote a nuclear familly would help this conservatism. It's fair that people marry not just to have children, i do understand that some people can't have children and some wont, they are married to support each other.

/me thinks ...

some people can't have children and some wont, they are married to support each other.

Homosexial couples can do this... yup. Nuetrino you're right.

:naughty:

But i dont think you understood what i was trying and failing to put across.
I was just stating that society which is sometimes defined from the religion that spawns from it, being that religion helps to hold it together, something becoming hard in our more secular society. The society will disadvantage those not keeping up with the ideals and norms it wants to promote, such as stereotyping those characters into a bad light, such as single mothers, homosexuals and other minorities, through media and the religion.

Ofcourse heterosexual behaviour is a natural belief system, otherwise we wouldn't be here, my father would be off with some guy and my mother would be going out with another woman.

I do agree with homosexual marriage and cohabitation, but i dont think that it should be something people should promote over heterosexual relationships, just accepted as a way of life.

 

[Neutrino]

But i dont think you understood what i was trying and failing to put across.

Sorry about that.

I was just stating that society which is sometimes defined from the religion that spawns from it, being that religion helps to hold it together, something becoming hard in our more secular society. The society will disadvantage those not keeping up with the ideals and norms it wants to promote, such as stereotyping those characters into a bad light, such as single mothers, homosexuals and other minorities, through media and the religion.

However, there are many many religions in our society. I don't think you can really single out one and give it any special credit for society. Though I'm sure possibly you and other people might argue with me on this point.

Ofcourse heterosexual behaviour is a natural belief system, otherwise we wouldn't be here, my father would be off with some guy and my mother would be going out with another woman.

Hmm, I can understand what your saying and of course the majority of people engage in hetrosexual behavior, but I do not think homosexual behavior is unnatural. Someone above made this point as well and I though it was worth reiterating. I don't think something is natural just because it fits with the majority of people's actions and beliefs. Something is natural because it happens in nature and is a part of biology. Homosexuality is also something that happens naturally in my opinion, even though a small minority practice it. Not exactly disagreeing with you here, just clarifying my stance on it.

I do agree with homosexual marriage and cohabitation, but i dont think that it should be something people should promote over heterosexual relationships, just accepted as a way of life.

I pretty much agree with this. I don't think anyone here is arguing that homosexuality should be "promoted" over hetrosexuality. I don't think it's something that can even be promoted as I don't think people decide to become gay. Yup just acceptance is all I want from people.

Thanks for clarifying your points. Sorry if I misunderstood what you were trying to say either last time or this time.

 

[f|uke]

I, for one, do think that male homosexuality should be heavily promoted as the preffered lifestyle.

More chicks for me

 

[oldagerocker]

However, there are many many religions in our society. I don't think you can really single out one and give it any special credit for society. Though I'm sure possibly you and other people might argue with me on this point.

Each society has a dominant religion, i dont mean in today's western society where cultures are mixed and beliefs are more widespread but when societies are formed, back in the days of the old testament (where most of the anti-homosexual beliefs are stemming from imo) there was just one religion, Until a time of social change such as an invasion or revolution. For example, in medieval England the dominant and incredibly powerful religion was Catholicism (sp?), then the reform to Protestantism. Or before that, Saxon society was pagan, until the romans invaded and made it firstly Roman religion then Christian.

Back when the societies were formed and grew, the religions growing with them as a way of social support took on the beliefs of the time. Now everyone is here, there and everywhere, religion is more widespread and this doesn't really count anymore. But thats what i meant.

 

[Prince of China]

More chicks for me

And me!

 

[Neutrino]

Each society has a dominant religion, i dont mean in today's western society where cultures are mixed and beliefs are more widespread but when societies are formed, back in the days of the old testament (where most of the anti-homosexual beliefs are stemming from imo) there was just one religion, Until a time of social change such as an invasion or revolution. For example, in medieval England the dominant and incredibly powerful religion was Catholicism (sp?), then the reform to Protestantism. Or before that, Saxon society was pagan, until the romans invaded and made it firstly Roman religion then Christian.

Back when the societies were formed and grew, the religions growing with them as a way of social support took on the beliefs of the time. Now everyone is here, there and everywhere, religion is more widespread and this doesn't really count anymore. But thats what i meant.

Ok, I see what your saying now. Thanks.

 

[oldagerocker]

No problem, i read back what i said and i couldnt understand what the hell i was babbling about ! I shouldnt write when im tired. Im only up because ive just remembered ive lost something really important and im looking around for it franticly!!

 

[f|uke]

And me!

Woo! ^5!

 

[Phisionary]

Unequivically, yes.

wow. great discussion guys. playing catchup, but i want to put in some thoughts.

Last time I checked, "marriage" wasn't a trademark. Christianity doesn't own the name.

Quoted for emphasis.

Make a new word for it. Again, it is very sentimental to the majority of citizens in this country.

I fail to see why that should be a reason to reserve it to heterosexual unions. It seems the preacticers or historical marriage have been able to impart some dubios honors on the concept of marriage all by themselves... For example: Marriage used solely as a method to allow legal emigration into the country, the utmost example of marriage for convenience. Marriage, used by some to define relationships with a man and more than one woman, i.e. polygamy. (my views on that are a different issue) Marriage, and the fact that it has scarcely the meaning it may have in the past... No longer a lifetime bond, more than 50 percent of marriages end in divorce.
Despite this, a few guys and girls want to marry each other (respectively), and it will destory the word for every strait couple (oh, thought of another one, gays marrried top the opposite sex so they can appear "normal" to others).

Of course, I don't know how many studies you will find on the prevelance of homosexuality in prehistoric times.

Well, that is absolutely terrible. Anyone volunteer? :E

Yeah another problem there. The question is basically the same as "why should the government treat people equally? I demand that they continue to treat me better than others, as they have for the last 200 years." Some people have simply gotten used to the preferential treatment. Crybabies.

I'd like to take this oppertunity to thank Mecha and Neutrino (among others) for fighting the good fight ( IMnsHO ) in this thread.

I used the phrase bond between two people quite intentionally. There are accounts of homosexuality throughout ancient history (island of lesbos anyone?) it certainly is nothing new. The christians didn't invent marriage, almost every society managed to evolve a similar custom independantly. No institution has to right to delare what form of marriage is legal, especially when those privlaged indeviduals whom the state sees fit to wed are then given further benefits.

Quoted for emphasis.

Then I guess there is no trademark on anyword. 'Guess' now means 'answer'. Light means dark. Etc. etc.

No, but their may be a legal definition. If, leagally, there would (and should) be no difference between unions between men and women, then their should not be a law arbitrarily dissalowing one of those words for one group of people. Perhaps the legal definition of a marriage, for everyone, should be changed to 'civil union'. And everyone can call it whatever they want.

Some scholar editing the dictionary doesn't determine the laws of marriage

Neither should some cleric quoting scripture.

If a gay couple where to have kids, the assholes at school would torture them for having two 'mothers' or 'fathers'. They're all little shits and nowadays, kids use the word 'fag' homo out of context. Some 'gangster' in my Tech Ed 9 class, called me and my friends a '******' for not helping. We weren't assholes or anything, but he didn't listen to the teacher. Anyways, I got rid of the problem and I would've made another thread about this asshole or just describe him in this thread, but that would be straying from this thread.

I hardly see this ass an argument against... If anything, it shows a need to embrace greater acceptance, and try to encourage tolerance to prevent this kind of bigotry (no doubt often passed from parents and other autority figures).

Edit:

More chicks for me

this does bring up an interesting issue to my eyes... what are the valid legal objections to multiple-union-relationships? (to avoid a different word)
Though it can scarcely be equated to a similar relationship involving two individuals ( legal & economic benefits for 1 + 1 not equal to legal & economic benefits for 1 + 1 + 1 + (etc.))
Dispite such relationships being very commonly abused by most preactitioners, on what grounds to such objections really based??

I guess that's fairly offtopic. as this is a discussion for the purposes of providing input on a particular issue for acedmic reasons, i suppose it should be discussed elsewhere.

 

[gh0st]

the argument is with the word, not the notion, at least for me it is. marriage is a religious term and id ont think it should be used to describe something inheritely against the religion.

 

[f|uke]

Marriage is a religious term? And what, a specifically Christian one at that?

Do you oppose athiest/agnostic marriages too?