-
Axx wrote on 2010-07-03 21:19
Ah, I found the problem. Here:
As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences.
Always place children and society before your own needs and happiness. It's better for two married people to be miserable in life as long as it's ''for the child''. Did you know that it's illegal for hospitals to tell a father that his child isn't actually his? You see, it's more important that the child lives in a peaceful (albiet false) happy family.
In my perfect world, cheating means death. F.UCK ALL CHEATERS.
It's thoughts like this that piss me off.
Oh and
But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five?
I don't think the sexual part is needed, but hey,
LEGALLY CONSENSUAL love among 5 people, I'm all for it. I don't know who decided that a family had to have only 2 parents, anyways.
-
Finnea wrote on 2010-07-04 00:05
Moral standards are personal beliefs of right and wrong. You people have this mixed up. You keep using the term "morally wrong" for you argument against homosexual marriage and relationships. Because morals are entirely personal, they should not have anything to do with someone being allowed to get married or not. Marriage is allowed or disallowed by the government, whose job it is to give equal rights to all. Why are they able to deny someone the right to have financial benefits and tax reductions from marriage just because it is "morally wrong" for them to be with who they want to be with? Perhaps if marriage truly was for the sole reason of procreation, I'd see your point. However in this day and age it just isn't the whole reason of marriage. People get married because they love each other, not necessarily because they want children. There are plenty of people that get married all the time and physically can't have kids. I personally know a woman who got married to a man because they loved each other. They wanted kids and tried many, many times to have them, but they just couldn't. The woman is incapable of bearing children. If the purpose of marriage is procreation, shouldn't they have been denied the right to be married as well? Or what about people that just don't want kids? I know plenty of people that just don't want them. Many of them are in happy, healthy relationships and either are married or want to get married. Are you saying that these people shouldn't be able to get married to the person they love based on the fact that they do not want children? If this was 100 years ago, your point might make sense. However, in this time period people aren't always thinking about procreation and having children. They think of falling in love with whomever they want and getting married first. Kids come second, after that marriage, if at all. Besides, this isn't thousands of years ago when the human race wasn't large. There are so many people on this planet that we can't even support ourselves (starving people in Africa amongst other places). Why is procreation so important when it's estimated that in the coming years our population will get up to 10 billion people?
Going on, I don't like your comparison between homosexuality and pedophilia. Pedophilia, by definition, is the "sexual desire in an adult for a child." Pedophilia is by no means wrong. People view pedophilia as old men attacking young children for sexual pleasure. This is not necessarily the case. Desire does not necessarily lead to rape. Going even further, by laws and standards of the United States, love between an individual over 18 and an individual under 18 is still technically considered pedophilia, even though they're in the same age group (i.e. someone who's 18 and someone who's 15.) This brings up the point that pedophilia can be consensual. Love is without boundaries and should not be bound by anything such as age.
You also cited polygamy as an example. Again, love is boundless. If a group of people can make it work between them, who's to say they shouldn't? Again, the only reason you stated that this is wrong is because it is "morally wrong."
Furthermore, you also included incest in your examples. In olden times, it was physically okay to marry those that you are related to. And even in the present, it is still physically okay.
Another point that was brought up against gay marriage was gender roles. It was stated that children probably will not be raised properly and in a good environment if they do not have both a male and female role model in their lives as parental figures. Who's to say that two married women cannot provide adequete roles for their children? Why can't they share both gender roles, each sometimes seeming as the male role and sometimes the female role? Hell, in some homosexual situations, one of them wants to be the opposite sex anyway, and so they may also act like that gender. In a household with two married women, if one truly wishes to be a man and acts as such, where is the lack of a male role model? Gender roles are not kept within the biological sex of a person and should not be treated as such.
My last point, it has been stated in this argument that homosexuality is a "bad habit." In my life I was fearful of the prosecution against gay marriage that I prevented myself from marrying the one I was in love with originally. However gradually, not thanks to any civil rights movements or any influence by "pro-gay America," I overcame my fears and eventually married the one I was orignally in love with, a woman.
P.S. As far as Osay's get-out-of-ban-free card, Sayoko has not expressed any definite reasons, only her opinions. By no means can you provide any definite reasons or wrongs against homosexuals.
-
Justified wrote on 2010-07-04 00:12
Quote from Axx;81367:
Always place children and society before your own needs and happiness. It's better for two married people to be miserable in life as long as it's ''for the child''. Did you know that it's illegal for hospitals to tell a father that his child isn't actually his? You see, it's more important that the child lives in a peaceful (albiet false) happy family. In my perfect world, cheating means death. F.UCK ALL CHEATERS.
It's thoughts like this that piss me off.
Society might go down hill if children progressively grow up in more and more messed up homes. Attempting to preserve that peace is productive and logical, though maybe not all means to that end may be entirely correct.
-
Axx wrote on 2010-07-04 01:36
Quote from Justified;81431:
Society might go down hill if children progressively grow up in more and more messed up homes. Attempting to preserve that peace is productive and logical, though maybe not all means to that end may be entirely correct.
Of course, that wouldn't actually happen if people didn't cheat. And it still winds up with the basic family structure being built upon lies. Eventually, the kid is gonna find out (when the hospital examines his family history and finds something doesn't match up). It's a violation of men's rights, but forgiven because it's "for the kids". That and nobody really cares about men's rights.
-
Syrphid wrote on 2010-07-04 01:47
Quote from Sayoko;81343:
Oh nice joke =D.
I believe it is morally wrong. And one thing, I believe religious reasons are certainly the worst way to support that fact. Quoting from the Bible, Koran, etc makes the argument even weaker and makes the religions look even less appealing. It's like trying to explain why democrats suck with a book written by a hardcore republican. However, this secular argument sums it up rather nicely, defending the role of the traditional marriage and the martial chaos that can ensue and the pain kids must go through to be deprived a mother or a father due to being adopted into a gay family without both a male/female role model. Of course, there are cases in heterosexual marriages too but in a homosexual marriage, almost 100% of the time, a child is deprived either a mother or a father while in heterosexual marriage, it is a much lower percentage, only resulting if the family is divorced or never married in the first place. Furthermore, breaking down the role of marriage to whatever people see fits does affect families adversely, making many take marriage not as seriously as they had 100 years ago when it was near PERMANENT.
This article I found sums up a secular argument about why gay marriage is "morally unethical":
"Some argue that the link between marriage and procreation is not as strong as it once was, and they are correct. Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage, in every society around the world, has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies have downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage, rather than the good of the children or the social order, has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos. "
life·style
   /ˈlaɪfˌstaɪl/ Show Spelled[lahyf-stahyl] Show IPA
–noun
the habits, attitudes, tastes, moral standards, economic level, etc., that together constitute the mode of living of an individual or group
Part of what constitutes a gay lifestyle:
Tastes- attraction of a person of the same gender
Moral Standards - homosexuality is correct
It is not clear to me why the inability to create children implies the inability to raise children. I think that has to be answered for the argument to be sound.
I understand that in a same-sex coupling both parents are of the same sex, but I'm not sure how that guarantees that their children will fail.
-
Justified wrote on 2010-07-04 02:09
Quote from Axx;81483:
Of course, that wouldn't actually happen if people didn't cheat. And it still winds up with the basic family structure being built upon lies. Eventually, the kid is gonna find out (when the hospital examines his family history and finds something doesn't match up). It's a violation of men's rights, but forgiven because it's "for the kids". That and nobody really cares about men's rights.
Even if the family breaks down later on, the kid is probably better off than being raised in a broken home.
The grown up child, if raised properly, would probably be able to handle that revelation later on in his/her life. On the other hand, if the father finds out early on and gets pissed, it could lead to abuse or abandonment. The parent who gets custody of the child would then have to juggle keeping food on the table and giving proper attention to responsibilities as a parent.
Too many hypothetical to consider there, but it just seems like hiding the fact would be more beneficial. Unless the wife continued to cheat on the husband, but that would have a dark ending no matter how you look at it.
-
Phunkie wrote on 2010-07-04 03:19
It is just as much as a lifestyle as the way you live.
You have your own moral codes and tastes.
My question is now, what makes your lifestyle the correct and only right one??
Gays can love each other.
Gays can raise children and they do a great job at it.
Gays are people too.
The only thing I see you spew is, oh no, it's morally unethical. And oh no, I don't like their lifestyle.
You should not be so concerned with my lifestyle if I'm not raping children or murdering people and then having sex with their bodies. I am not a psychopath, not a serial killer. I am a human being who feels attracted to members of the same sex. That should not concern you at all.
It doesn't affect you.
It's your fault if you cringe when you see two men kiss.
It's your fault if you shudder at the thought of two lesbians adopting children.
It's your fault if you cannot simply stand the fact that homosexuals have sex like you will one day (if you don't already).
Your disgust has NOTHING to do with whether gays deserve the same rights as heterosexual couples. If you could provide me with a logical explanation to why we cannot have the same rights as you, then maybe I'd listen, but all you've done is compare homosexuality to:
alcoholism
pedophilia
beastiality
domestic violence
geeks marrying video game characters
To prove what? That we're crazy? That maybe our brains are developed differently and that justifies the crazy demands we've made over the decades? Am I some sort of retard for demanding the right to marriage? I must be.
Everyone who has countered your arguments has done so using intelligent arguments and counterarguments.
The only reason why you feel "threatened" by our "lifestyle" is because you are disgusted by it. To you, gays are an abomination and you'd love to get rid of every single one of them. Because the only thing our lifestyle seems to do is corrupt your beautiful, ideal, non-gay world.
Gimme a break.
I am done with this thread, however. We won't convince each other, but I know... I just know that one day gay marriage will be recognized in the United States because we won't give up and we will triumph over people like you.
And 60 years from now, you will be that bitter old man or woman who will continue to complain about gays and their horrible lifestyle, which has never affected you at all.
-
Finnea wrote on 2010-07-04 04:18
Such a great ending statement Phunkie, Really. All that has been used as "reasoning" in this debate are mere stereotypes. Such things like Lifestyles and morals and parenting obviously vary from person to person. You absolutely cannot judge a whole group of people and say that they have this lifestyle, they have this effect on kids. Clearly, we all need to get past those stereotypes and look at people on an individual level.
-
Rime wrote on 2010-07-04 08:43
Since we're in the spam zone, I'm assuming that the mods don't expect this to be an intelligent debate, and neither should anyone else for the matter.
Given the previous conditions, here is my contribution to this debate.
[SIZE="4"]Vaginaboob[/SIZE]
Vaginae and boobs are nice. So that x 2 must be 2 x as nice. I don't care too much for the alternative.
-
Finnea wrote on 2010-07-04 08:45
Quote from Rime;81797:
Since we're in the spam zone, I'm assuming that the mods don't expect this to be an intelligent debate, and neither should anyone else for the matter.
Given the previous conditions, here is my contribution to this debate.
[SIZE="4"]Vaginaboob[/SIZE]
Vaginae and boobs are nice. So that x 2 must be 2 x as nice. I don't care too much for the alternative.
hehe, ten year olds.
-
Rime wrote on 2010-07-04 08:46
Isn't this the section for them?
-
Finnea wrote on 2010-07-04 08:48
Nah you have a point but you've pretty much lost my respect. =3
-
Rime wrote on 2010-07-04 08:50
One down, the rest of the world to go.
-
xai wrote on 2010-07-04 14:56
I can't change being gay, some of you think that its a choice that we choose to be this way, but honestly its not.
when ever some say this i tell them think of it this way.
- you are straight and can not have feelings for men ever !
just twist that around and you got gay.
you don't choose to have feelings for men, you can not.
and if you do for men and women , you are bisexual.
Its impossible for me to feel the same way a straight person feel about a woman, and i don't know how this effects someones else life.
Its not you that is gay, so i say let gays marry. I believe in god and if i was made this way, i am sure that god intended that way.
-
Tedio wrote on 2010-07-04 15:12
ah.....I knew this wouldn't turn out good. INB4LOCK.