toldailytopic: Same-sex marriage: for it, or against it?

[Universalist]

:rotfl:

Sure. Well that's good: next time you swear off another gay thread I'll just assume the topic's too darn interesting for you to ignore.

In other news, gay people continue to get married and the sky hasn't fallen yet. If adults love one another and want to demonstrate this to the rest of the world, the worst thing someone could do is stand in their way.

Naturally, Christians are doing that.

Antagonist hard-core and extreme Christianity's been on the wrong side of every single social advancement in this country since slavery. You cannot beat that kind of consistency.

Great Post!:up:

The sky has not fallen in yet, God has not sent lightning flashes to strike them down at the altars.

I am honestly not sure why some Christians feel it is their duty to stop two people who love each other from getting married, I have yet to figure out why if God has not stopped it they think they are called to be some type of 'sin' police over someone life.

Then again, I can. It all boils down to control and fear. People want to try to control things they fear. The, "If we don't understand it, it has to be destroyed" syndrome.

I can't for the life of me understand how two people getting married effects someone else love life or life overall.

Gay people adopt children all the time and I don't think God has a problem with that either. Children want to be loved and they don't care who in the hell is loving them, just love them.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

So, unless someone is has the potential of producing children as a couple, they shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Wowza, that leaves many heterosexuals out also.

Did you watch the video?

 

[Sherman]

Did you watch the video?

I could be wrong, but I suspect that none of the 'pro' side in this thread watched it.

 

[Rusha]

Did you watch the video?

Yes

 

[Rusha]

I could be wrong, but I suspect that none of the liberals in this thread watched it.

Not a liberal, but I watched it and concluded that his reasoning is irrelevant to the issue.

 

[Universalist]

I could be wrong, but I suspect that none of the 'pro' side in this thread watched it.

I watched it and I agree with Rusha.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Not a liberal, but I watched it and concluded that his reasoning is irrelevant to the issue.

How is it irrelevant? It directly addresses your question. Unless your question is no longer relevant, which seems to me the case, given the answer.

 

[Sherman]

Yes

Then the point behind the video wasn't just bearing children, even though its the primary function of marriage. Infertility is the worm in the apple. The worm doesn't make the apple cease being an apple. Child bearing is never the primary function of a homosexual union.

A father and a mother also each perform an important function in the rearing of children. When there are same gender parents present, a key part ends up missing. Children need both a male and a female parent to be present for healthy development.

Children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, practice homosexual behavior, and engage in sexual experimentation. Adolescents and young adults who adopt the homosexual lifestyle, like their adult counterparts, are at increased risk of mental health problems, including major depression, anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, substance dependence, and especially suicidal ideation and suicide attempts.

Source

 

[Rusha]

"If gay and lesbian people are given civil rights, then everyone will want them!" ~ Author unknown

 

[Universalist]

"If gay and lesbian people are given civil rights, then everyone will want them!" ~ Author unknown

Imagine that..:doh:

 

[Rusha]

How is it irrelevant? It directly addresses your question. Unless your question is no longer relevant, which seems to me the case, given the answer.

Then the point behind the video wasn't just bearing children, even though its the primary function of marriage. Infertility is the worm in the apple. The worm doesn't make the apple cease being an apple. Child bearing is never the primary function of a homosexual union.

A father and a mother also each perform an important function in the rearing of children. When there are same gender parents present, a key part ends up missing. Children need both a male and a female parent to be present for healthy development.

"I know a thing or two about marriage," says Larry King in the latest ad from HRC's Campaign for New York Marriage. "Maybe three, maybe four. Some of us can get married again and again, and others can’t get married at all. Can’t figure that out."

lain:

 

[Zeus]

Then the point behind the video wasn't just bearing children, even though its the primary function of marriage. Infertility is the worm in the apple. The worm doesn't make the apple cease being an apple. Child bearing is never the primary function of a homosexual union.

Then, gender of the parents is the color of the apple. Whether the apple is red or green, it's still an apple with similar nourishment to be had from it by hungry children.

 

[Aletheia]

This is a complicated subject. I'm certainly not for it, but the issue begins well before marriage. I'm against homosexuality being legal, period. Of course, sex outside of marriage [including pornography, etc.] is where it really began. Society accepted that and here we are, asking this question. 70 years ago this question would never have even crossed the minds of people who weren't queer.

 

[Zeus]

This is a complicated subject. I'm certainly not for it, but the issue begins well before marriage. I'm against homosexuality being legal, period. Of course, sex outside of marriage [including pornography, etc.] is where it really began. Society accepted that and here we are, asking this question. 70 years ago this question would never have even crossed the minds of people who weren't queer.

I beg to differ just a bit. If rather, the Renaissance were wider spread, better understood, and accepted, we would find ourselves a better adjusted human race no longer grasping at notions of absolute authority through superstition and outdated notions from the ancient past. Perhaps, then Puritanical notions of sexuality and body shame would be no more, and we could function quite well with a moral system based on our common humanity and a humble acceptance that for humans the unknown will always outweigh what is known.

 

[Refractive]

"Marriage" is a religious practice, so it shouldn't be apart of the law either way.
Lets insert civil union contracts for consenting adults.

I'm with you, except to note that "marriage" in this country is not a religious institution but a cultural practice that is also a legal institution. Which is why you don't need a minister to get married.

However, I would prefer making marriage a function of religion and so protect sacramental marriage.

BUT - the time for civil union has come. However, restricting this to couples with a wish to make a romantic commitment is too limiting. It should be possible for any two adults, like an adult child and an aging parent to register a civil union. It has benefits for the couple and for the culture. It should be possible for adult brothers and sisters or any two adults that wish to commit to one another under the protection of the law.

One thing this does, if there are children involved, is give that family unit the same kind protection and responsibility as a marriage. So the children of single people, including BTW, many adult gay persons, will have the same kinds of protections as children in two-parent heterosexual homes.

I also think civil unions should be expanded to include up to four persons and must be in force for a minimum of 5 years.

 

[John Mortimer]

I could be wrong, but I suspect that none of the 'pro' side in this thread watched it.

I did - and I understand the guy's reasoning. The essence of his reasoning is the definition of marriage and the fact that any marriage between a male and a female can in principle, (in an abstract conceptual sense), produce children.

So even if a man who has undergone castration marries a woman who has had her womb removed that marriage is still valid because in principle they could still produce children.

That's fine. I have indicated earlier that I don't understand why Gay and Lesbian people would want to have the blessing of the institution of the Christian church. I would go as far as to say there is probably unresolved psychology involved if they DO. I mean, why not just let go of the institution of the church? The church has no moral authority over you as a free individual unless you grant it such.

For me the big question is NOT about what the definition of marriage is, (as that can always be debated) - it's about seeking to deny people the right to marry.

I mean - the objectors will always have the right to say they don't accept gay marriage as valid, as real. Yet that's not good enough for them... they want to get in people's way and forbid to marry. :think:

 

[Skavau]

This is a complicated subject. I'm certainly not for it, but the issue begins well before marriage. I'm against homosexuality being legal, period. Of course, sex outside of marriage [including pornography, etc.] is where it really began. Society accepted that and here we are, asking this question. 70 years ago this question would never have even crossed the minds of people who weren't queer.

Totalitarianism has never been so subtle.

 

[chrysostom]

Why do you refuse to answer the question directly?

Is marriage, IYO, for the main purpose of procreation?

the main purpose of marriage is to protect the child and the mother who takes care of the child

the main purpose of sex is procreation

 

[Granite]

Wrong conclusion. This thread is finally getting interesting posters in it. I like having intelligent discussion, Not just having a mud flinging contest. It gets tiresome.

You said the topic disgusted you so much you wouldn't talk about it again here. Suit yourself.:idunno:

The function of marriage from the outset is to form family unit.

Yes...

But the homosexual union never has the potential from the outset of producing children...

So what?

or forming a proper family unit.

A "proper" family unit, eh? So what would be considered a "proper" family? Because this sounds as subjective, random, and vague as all get out. If a straight couple who can't have kids or doesn't intend to gets hitched are they less than "proper"?

 

[Granite]

Not a liberal, but I watched it and concluded that his reasoning is irrelevant to the issue.

Keyes's version of "reasoning" is usually completely irrelevant to whatever it is he decides to talk about.