We aren't afraid of g@ys we are pro traditional marriage

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"] Only straight couples can produce kids. So...fidosim

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Or rather, only a subset of straight couples can have kids; and yet you apparently don't wish to restrict marriage to this subset, but rather to the subset of couples who are heterosexual. Not to mention the stupidity of your reasoning, as others have pointed out and which I therefore don't need to restate.

toast_burner

As this is such a controversial topic I'll simply quote someone who can articulate the thoughts I have with better accuracy:

It is wise that our laws define marriage as between a man and a woman.

This is not because homosexual practice or same-sex relationships should be legally stopped. Rather, it?s because they should not be legally sanctioned. The issue is not whether same-sex unions are permitted, but whether they are institutionalized. The issue is not whether we tolerate same-sex relationships, but whether we build on them as a foundation for society. The issue is not whether we forbid a particular sin, but whether we mandate social approval of that sin. The issue is not whether we block a sinful behavior, but whether we imbed it in our laws.

I am not making a case for the legal prosecution of homosexual practice. Nor would I advocate the legal prosecution of heterosexual fornication. But I would make a case against the institutionalization of fornication, or making it a building block of society, or mandating its approval, or imbedding it in our laws. It is one thing to tolerate sin. It is another to build society on it.

mindstorm

But as far as I know it is against the teachings of the Bible. Would you so adamantly stand up for the abolishment of divorce?

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] ....There's no logic in opposing gay marriage. None. Furthermore, there's plenty of logical reasons as to why gay marriage should be allowed. Philokalia

If it is a God given institution there is perfect logic in opposing gay marraige. And no there is no logical reason why gays should be married or why anyone should be married under what I would assume is your naturalist and atheistic world view.

Equel rights and freedom of religion

not everyone believes in your god therefore don't have to obied to his laws.,

toast_burner

In a democratic country the law is represented by the will of the people and thus it should be as such. But you would prevent that democratic process from happening if it were against your position. The fact is there are equal rights for everyone and this is how it should be. It is not a right to marry who you love legally and morally.

Often when I hear people argue for gay marriage they always say some variation of: "it has nothing to do with you" or "if you don't like big government, why intrude on something personal like marriage?" These are valid arguments but I would say that gay marriage changes the fundamental relations between genders (if it is to be accepted) and thus affects us all indirectly. In the future being really good friends with someone of the same gender can be misconstrued as gay Imagine you go out with some buddies and your gf/mom/whatever worries that you might be cheating on her with a dude. I just can't imagine a society that lives like that. Why? We don't have to oppress homosexuals, but why should we change our definition of marriage for them? Isn't marriage defined from Christianity and Jewish traditions? Why don't they just stick with civil unions? By making them the same as a heterosexual relationship we open up a whole world of problems in the area of relationships and marriage. We know (scientifically) that children raised by a man and a women are most heathy mentally, but we can't prove (scientifically) that homosexuality is innate. Indeed the only result I've seen so far of this movement is a greater acceptance of lesbianism (usually to the pleasure of men) and bisexuality in women in particular (see Black Swan or a Girl with a Dragon Tattoo movies for examples). How is this equality movement any different from a sexual revolution that liberalizes sexual relations?

peter1191

We do know scientifically that homosexuality isbiological.

We know scientifically that there is nocausation between being raised by a gay couple and a married couple.

Though I do believe gay couples should be able to adopt, marriage equality has nothing to do with adoption. Besides, no sane politician would make an argument for taking homosexual's biological children away, so I don't see why this is even an issue. Beyond abuse parents are free to raise their children in any way they please. Suicides are higher among Protestants than other religious denominations, according to your logic Protestants should not be able to have children.

Arguing that gay marriage liberalizes sex relations is false by definition, it's extending an institution meant to monogamize sexual relationships to homosexuals.

When we coined the term sexual harassment back in the sixties we changed relations between genders. Change is not always bad.

The most egregious hole in your argument is that you're posing an unfalsifiable claim. Your claim of homosexual marriage changing the fundamental properties of marriage is vague in exactly what those properties are and how they are being changed. If it is ever proven that marriage is not being changed in the manner you say it is or that it is being changed but for the better, then you can always move the goalposts and say that gay marriage is changing it in a different manner because you never bothered to specify how it was being changed in the first place.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"] Only straight couples can produce kids. So...fidosim

[QUOTE="Person0"] Yep people having equal rights isn't logical....................... Wow Philokalia

What is logic? What is reason? Give me your world view and I will give you mine. I fully agree that my position is fully derived from my religious beliefs. And I will say this there is no naturalistic reason to be against gay marriage, but then again I would also suggest on pure naturalisim there is no good reaosn to be for it. It comes from a perspective of worldviews this discussion ultimately not as if there were any reasons in of itself for the positions.

What if my religion allows same sex marriage? There are a few churches that do. You can't use religion as an arguing point as it doesn't apply to everyone.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="toast_burner"]Why should we have to compromise?

Funky_Llama

Marriage is not a fvcking god given institution here. Are you really this dense? Churches can still refuse to allow a gay couple to marry in their church. nothing will change other than gays getting the rights they deserve. l4dak47

I said if it is a Godly institution then it is perfectly logical to be against gay marriage.

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Or rather, only a subset of straight couples can have kids; and yet you apparently don't wish to restrict marriage to this subset, but rather to the subset of couples who are heterosexual. Not to mention the stupidity of your reasoning, as others have pointed out and which I therefore don't need to restate.Funky_Llama

lol this thread.

[QUOTE="Bucked20"][QUOTE="majoras_wrath"] Just when I thought you couldn't get any more ignorant, you crap this out.coolbeans90

rofl

are you saying you could just wake up one day and say "i think i want to suck d!ck today!"

if so, bad news, bruv...

lol this thread.

Aljosa23

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="majoras_wrath"] Well that's not equal, is it? The sink on the left is clearly superior. So separate but equal. That worked out real well in the United States. majoras_wrath

>__>

Tell me what makes your religion so special that it should be forced upon everyone else.

What if my religion allows same sex marriage? There are a few churches that do. You can't use religion as an arguing point as it doesn't apply to everyone.

toast_burner

Well I would say what makes my religion special is that it is true. But we don't live in theocracies we live in a democracy and you don't think the will of the people should be accepted in this regard? Thats fine.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"] Because that's life.SolidSnake35

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"]I just don't think marriage should become unmoored from its fundamental purpose, which is the creation of children. fidosim

So then what is your view on straight married couples who never have children?

So than you would outlaw marriage for straight couples who do not have children?

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Bucked20"] Those kids will turn out gay,you know its the truth Bucked20

rofl

are you saying you could just wake up one day and say "i think i want to suck d!ck today!"

if so, bad news, bruv...

[QUOTE="Philokalia"]

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] ....There's no logic in opposing gay marriage. None. Furthermore, there's plenty of logical reasons as to why gay marriage should be allowed. l4dak47

If it is a God given institution there is perfect logic in opposing gay marraige. And no there is no logical reason why gays should be married or why anyone should be married under what I would assume is your naturalist and atheistic world view.

Do you really have to ask?

[QUOTE="toast_burner"]

Equel rights and freedom of religion

not everyone believes in your god therefore don't have to obied to his laws.,

Philokalia

In a democratic country the law is represented by the will of the people and thus it should be as such. But you would prevent that democratic process from happening if it were against your position. The fact is there are equal rights for everyone and this is how it should be. It is not a right to marry who you love legally and morally.

It is a right, what did you do to earn it?

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Bucked20"] Those kids will turn out gay,you know its the truth Bucked20

rofl

are you saying you could just wake up one day and say "i think i want to suck d!ck today!"

if so, bad news, bruv...

Per usual you are wrong. http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/children_with_lesbian_gay_bisexual_and_transgender_parents

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="worlock77"]

So then what is your view on straight married couples who never have children?

worlock77

So than you would outlaw marriage for straight couples who do not have children?

[QUOTE="Person0"] Yep people having equal rights isn't logical....................... Wow Philokalia

What is logic? What is reason? Give me your world view and I will give you mine. I fully agree that my position is fully derived from my religious beliefs. And I will say this there is no naturalistic reason to be against gay marriage, but then again I would also suggest on pure naturalisim there is no good reaosn to be for it. It comes from a perspective of worldviews this discussion ultimately not as if there were any reasons in of itself for the positions.

Separation of Church and State. (Marriage is a legal agreement)

My view is that gay marriage leads to more equality while not harming anyone so there is no reason to oppose it.

If we allow gay marriage soon babies will marry jellyfishes. It's simple extrapolation.

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

As this is such a controversial topic I'll simply quote someone who can articulate the thoughts I have with better accuracy:

It is wise that our laws define marriage as between a man and a woman.

This is not because homosexual practice or same-sex relationships should be legally stopped. Rather, it?s because they should not be legally sanctioned. The issue is not whether same-sex unions are permitted, but whether they are institutionalized. The issue is not whether we tolerate same-sex relationships, but whether we build on them as a foundation for society. The issue is not whether we forbid a particular sin, but whether we mandate social approval of that sin. The issue is not whether we block a sinful behavior, but whether we imbed it in our laws.

I am not making a case for the legal prosecution of homosexual practice. Nor would I advocate the legal prosecution of heterosexual fornication. But I would make a case against the institutionalization of fornication, or making it a building block of society, or mandating its approval, or imbedding it in our laws. It is one thing to tolerate sin. It is another to build society on it.

Teenaged

But as far as I know it is against the teachings of the Bible. Would you so adamantly stand up for the abolishment of divorce?

[QUOTE="fidosim"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]As you're just repeating your previous argument, and I explained why your previous argument was so utterly stupid, I don't think any response is required from me to this.Funky_Llama

Soooo, I should just let all this out because this topic gets thrown around every ten seconds:

I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry, given that both parties are able to give consent.

THE_DRUGGIE

I'm sorry, stopped reading there because ISN'T THAT, LIKE, SUPPOSED TO BE ASSUMED?

Christ, Zenny.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"] They are part of an institution that was not created for them.fidosim

So than you would outlaw marriage for straight couples who do not have children?

I will post this again

"Traditional" marriage has changed constantly over the years.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

As this is such a controversial topic I'll simply quote someone who can articulate the thoughts I have with better accuracy:

It is wise that our laws define marriage as between a man and a woman.

This is not because homosexual practice or same-sex relationships should be legally stopped. Rather, it?s because they should not be legally sanctioned. The issue is not whether same-sex unions are permitted, but whether they are institutionalized. The issue is not whether we tolerate same-sex relationships, but whether we build on them as a foundation for society. The issue is not whether we forbid a particular sin, but whether we mandate social approval of that sin. The issue is not whether we block a sinful behavior, but whether we imbed it in our laws.

I am not making a case for the legal prosecution of homosexual practice. Nor would I advocate the legal prosecution of heterosexual fornication. But I would make a case against the institutionalization of fornication, or making it a building block of society, or mandating its approval, or imbedding it in our laws. It is one thing to tolerate sin. It is another to build society on it.

mindstorm

But as far as I know it is against the teachings of the Bible. Would you so adamantly stand up for the abolishment of divorce?

[QUOTE="Bucked20"][QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

rofl

are you saying you could just wake up one day and say "i think i want to suck d!ck today!"

if so, bad news, bruv...

Guybrush_3

Per usual you are wrong. http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/children_with_lesbian_gay_bisexual_and_transgender_parents

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Don't they weed unthinking, fatuous 'reasoning' like this out of you if do a philosophy degree?Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] Marriage is not a fvcking god given institution here. Are you really this dense? Churches can still refuse to allow a gay couple to marry in their church. nothing will change other than gays getting the rights they deserve. Philokalia

I said if it is a Godly institution then it is perfectly logical to be against gay marriage.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="fidosim"] They are part of an institution that was not created for them.fidosim

So than you would outlaw marriage for straight couples who do not have children?

No? Having a marriage ceremony preformed by a church minister doesn't equal being married in the traditional sense? That might just be the biggest load of bullsh*t I've read on this forum all day (quite an accomplishment really).

Soooo, I should just let all this out because this topic gets thrown around every ten seconds:

I think homosexuals should be allowed to marry, given that both parties are able to give consent. I cannot see the harm to society in any shape or form, given that the sanctity argument doesn't hold a lot of water when you see the latest episode of My Big Fat Redneck Wedding and, financially, there's not any harm, either given that it allows homosexual couples to enjoy the same types of benefits and thus allows them to become more productive in society. Also, there is that whole giving catering services more business, and I was being a little silly saying that, but hey it's actually a nice, albeit small, side-effect of allowing same-sex marriage. Of course, there is the caveat of religion to consider.

Religion doesn't factor in much in this situation, no matter how much you really want it to. There will be at least one progressive church in every state that would go ahead with having marriage ceremonies, and the concept of morals equates to de facto oppression due to their being many more benefits than harms. Lastly, there's the topic of adoption.

Whether a child will be homosexual is, actually, not dependent on the sexuality of their parents. Gender roles may be affected, but there are children who have abusive fathers/mothers who skew gender roles as well, not to mention having two parents of the same gender would allow the child to become more accepting of people who go outside stereotypical gender roles. Thus, the child becomes more accepting of others.

So yeah, not seeing any kind of rational reason to NOT have same-sex marriage.

THE_DRUGGIE

I'd also like to add an addendum that people who oppose same-sex marriage fascinate me. I just wanna get inside their minds and understand why they even think that way.

I need to assemble a research team.

[QUOTE="l4dak47"] ....There's no logic in opposing gay marriage. None. Furthermore, there's plenty of logical reasons as to why gay marriage should be allowed. Philokalia

If it is a God given institution there is perfect logic in opposing gay marraige. And no there is no logical reason why gays should be married or why anyone should be married under what I would assume is your naturalist and atheistic world view.

[QUOTE="Guybrush_3"]

[QUOTE="Bucked20"] lol at yall thinking that wouldn't be a heavy influence kids Bucked20

Per usual you are wrong. http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/children_with_lesbian_gay_bisexual_and_transgender_parents

And yet it's infinitely larger than the sample size of any evidence you have presented.

I like the phrase in the topic of this thread. I don't approve of the homosexual lifestyle, as it is a sin, but that doesn't mean I'm against gays personally. I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman, but that doesn't make me anti-gay.

As for the government's role in the debate, it should be left up to the states-- the federal government shouldn't have a part in it.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[QUOTE="Bucked20"] Those kids will turn out gay,you know its the truth Bucked20

rofl

are you saying you could just wake up one day and say "i think i want to suck d!ck today!"

if so, bad news, bruv...

How the fvck do you think that kids can readily be convinced that smoking c0ck is enjoyable?

Like, is there an anecdote here?

Actually in my country issues like this are only voted amongst politicians, not the public. I prefer that system but unfortunately it is corrupted by the church (not to an extreme but even a tiny bit is too much)

It is a right, what did you do to earn it?

toast_burner

What is a right? What reasons do we have for believing in anything? This is hte position I come from in this debate. But in responce your questions Heterosexuals and Homosexuals did not earn the right to marry members of the opposite sex it is inherent in them. Of course this comes from my religious world view but how would you account for such a right as you call it?

Here in Canada we let "the gays" get married and nothing bad has happened in that regard. If I was to guess, it's probably because two people getting married is "no one else's ****ing business" and doesn't affect anyone else's life or marriage. 'Magine that, people not sticking their noses in other people's private life. What a concept.

We know (scientifically) that children raised by a man and a women are most heathy mentally

peter1191

Link? I know some pretty f*cked up people and none of them have gay parents. I'd actually be pretty surprised if that were true.

Anyways, if we want to worry about the traditional marriages, let's focus on divorce instead. A lot of people don't seem to take the "until death do us part" section seriously.

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

As this is such a controversial topic I'll simply quote someone who can articulate the thoughts I have with better accuracy:

It is wise that our laws define marriage as between a man and a woman.

This is not because homosexual practice or same-sex relationships should be legally stopped. Rather, it?s because they should not be legally sanctioned. The issue is not whether same-sex unions are permitted, but whether they are institutionalized. The issue is not whether we tolerate same-sex relationships, but whether we build on them as a foundation for society. The issue is not whether we forbid a particular sin, but whether we mandate social approval of that sin. The issue is not whether we block a sinful behavior, but whether we imbed it in our laws.

I am not making a case for the legal prosecution of homosexual practice. Nor would I advocate the legal prosecution of heterosexual fornication. But I would make a case against the institutionalization of fornication, or making it a building block of society, or mandating its approval, or imbedding it in our laws. It is one thing to tolerate sin. It is another to build society on it.

mindstorm

But as far as I know it is against the teachings of the Bible. Would you so adamantly stand up for the abolishment of divorce?

Gay marriage will be secular not religious.

So, why not the government? Do you suddenly decide to become a legalistic prick when it comes to gay marriage?

[QUOTE="peter1191"]

We know (scientifically) that children raised by a man and a women are most heathy mentally

zeldaluff

Link? I know some pretty f*cked up people and none of them have gay parents. I'd actually be pretty surprised if that were true.

Anyways, if we want to worry about the traditional marriages, let's focus on divorce instead. A lot of people don't seem to take the "until death do us part" section seriously.