-
Axx wrote on 2010-05-03 01:58
Hmm, perhaps this question will work:
If civil unions were legally identical to marriage, would there still be an issue? (also assume civil unions are legal everywhere)
-
Hiccup wrote on 2010-05-03 02:05
Quote from Axx;26506:
Well, since no one's gonna take up the against side, I'll throw this out here:
Not gonna hate since you don't (?) support being against it.
That is only true due to being gay is socially awkward and people will hate you for it even if they don't know you. The extreme amount of bullying can lead looking for an escape through anything really. I've been called gay for 8 years straight, non-stop. Just cause I "act gay" doesn't mean I am.
-
Axx wrote on 2010-05-03 02:13
Quote from bradstrt;26593:
That is only true due to being gay is socially awkward and people will hate you for it even if they don't know you. The extreme amount of bullying can lead looking for an escape through anything really. I've been called gay for 8 years straight, non-stop. Just cause I "act gay" doesn't mean I am.
I agree with you, but as shown farther up that point's support was a research study studying how long gay men with AIDS live. So, completely out of context and unusable in a real debate. D=
Not really caring enough right now to find "good" points against gay marriage. Chances are high that there aren't any. But then the discussion becomes boring.
-
Phunkie wrote on 2010-05-03 02:19
Quote from Axx;26586:
Hmm, perhaps this question will work:
If civil unions were legally identical to marriage, would there still be an issue? (also assume civil unions are legal everywhere)
If they are exactly identical to marriage, then why not call it so?
To distinguish both would be kinda unfair, don't you think? That is, if they are exactly the same.
Separate but equal, sort of thing.
-
Axx wrote on 2010-05-03 02:26
To placate/pacify those who view marriage as
1. a holy institution
2. between a man and a woman.
I don't really care personally about point #1 but I can kinda see where those who feel strongly about the sanctity of point 2 might be coming from.
-
Tedio wrote on 2010-05-03 02:31
Quote from Phunkie;26559:
You say you don't care, but then you say you wouldn't want to be raised by gay couples.
That screams out contradiction.
Why?
Because its not the norm, its not average.
Possibly when it becomes less taboo I wouldn't be against them raising children.
Marriage? Fine. Children? Not so much. Just trying to think about the kid itself.
-
Phunkie wrote on 2010-05-03 02:31
But what about civil marriages? They're more legal than religious.
Changing the name would only happen to satisfy certain groups of people, I agree. But that's so unfair and wrong.
lol @ this debate btw. We're all pretty much for it and no one's against it.
I'm boooored.
-
Hiccup wrote on 2010-05-03 02:34
Gays suck
/thread
debate!
-
Axx wrote on 2010-05-03 02:54
Er, no, that doesn't really do anything.
Although, I gathered from the locked thread and this one that to most (some?) it doesn't really matter who the parents are, as long as they are loving and willing to put in the effort to raise a child properly. Agree or disagree with this?
-
Hiccup wrote on 2010-05-03 03:04
Lol I know but literally they do suck!!! Serious.
If the parents are good and keep the kid happy and healthy then good, but if were gonna bring up that old closed debate again...................................... you all know my opinion.
-
Juno wrote on 2010-05-03 03:12
Eventually, someone's going to come in and disagree and all of you are going to jump on them like those evil flying monkeys from the Wizard of Oz.
That being said, I think this thread is a horrible idea since it's not really something that can be debated with numbers and facts so much as opinions.
Annnnnd that being said marriage right now caters to hetero couples who are child-bearing, at least in the US. Tax breaks and such apply even before children because they're obviously coming. I think marriage laws should be reworked to accommodate couples that are childless and plan to remain that way. No need to discriminate on sex, just on children in terms of tax breaks. Adopted kids count too. Of course, I doubt many people really plan to get married just for the tax breaks.
-
Syrphid wrote on 2010-05-03 04:22
Children of gay parents will be discriminated against amongst their peers. This will make their life far more difficult than it has to be. Therefore it is immoral for gay parents to raise children. Gay marriage is fine, but adoption should be off limits.
-
EndlessDreams wrote on 2010-05-03 04:34
Quote from Syrphid;26725:
Children of gay parents will be discriminated against amongst their peers. This will make their life far more difficult than it has to be. Therefore it is immoral for gay parents to raise children. Gay marriage is fine, but adoption should be off limits.
You talk as if children of minority groups aren't discriminated against their peers. (Whether it is religious, ethics, wealth, and/or etc.)
Discrimination and intolerance can be found in many societies.
Under the same logic, "black" parents shouldn't adopt non-black children because they will be heavily discriminated against in certain communities.
It would be immoral for those parents to adopt children not their own ethnicity?
-
Axx wrote on 2010-05-03 04:44
But if that's the case, then there's nothing wrong with letting loving incestuous couples marry and raise an adopted child. Or even a loving polygamous uh...triple or quadruple?
-
Magenera wrote on 2010-05-03 05:07
It is really hard to be on the no side for the fact of their not being much to go on in terms of facts on reason not to. Then if one was to bring up how it is sin to do so, and therefore they shouldn't do so and should be banned, they themselves have committed sin of forcing their beliefs down their throats.
Also homosexuals having low life expectancy might be related to stress more so then anything else, as it is a deviant, and therefore people ostracized them.