What is your view on homosexual rights and why?

[Der Teutoniker]

and then keeping all the young virgin girls for later raping.

Now you are being ridiculous. What else are you supposed to do with them?!

[Unhealthy2]

I know.

Long as you're okay with it.

[Viste Rosso]

gays, bisexuals and lesbians should have the right to marry. They should not have the right to adopt. Transexuals should have a right to mental thereapy.

this is just my opinion so don't take offense.

[SpectacularSpectacular]

Purpose and principal is what society defines it as. Our primary purpose and principals of marriage as understood in the modern Western World is property xfer and co-ownership, including legal power between life-partners. This is, for the most part in the US at least, open only to heterosexual life partners. Thus, we wish to keep the modern principal and purpose, but merely redefine the applicable parties. Which if far different than you, who wants to redefine the principal and purpose, and further limit applicable parties.

So if society decrees the purpose of a lightbulb was to rule the country, that is it's new purpose? Or would you think something has gone wrong in someone's chain of reasoning and that a lightbulb should be lighting a room. Shit analogy, but I think it holds water. Society is free to choose how to use objects and institutions, but their real purpose(s) remain unchanged.

And again, I am not redefining it. I don't agree with you're notion that I am changing a definition. Society's "definition" isn't a valid thing. There is an objective definition which I propose society adheres to, and I propose that they stop using marriage in a way that is not in concordance with its original purpose.

And if the 'objective' definition offered by the church is that lightning is gods rage? Shall society adhere to such nonsense in those cases?
The difference here is that a church does not follow a logical course in their formation of definitions, society is forced to do so...As if society was to elect a light-bulb, how long would it be before we realized a mistake may have been made(prepare for cynical snarky response).
And yes, it was a terrible analogy...

[Liang China]

This issue is near and dear to my heart since I'm gay. I believe that if a country gives one group of personages rights all people and parties should have that right. If you let heterosexuals marry why not homosexuals? Just picture if it was turned around, how would you like it if I banned you from marrying the love of your life because he/she was not the "right religion" or "right race". There is minimal difference between racism, homophobia, and antisemitism, they are all ways to force people to be a way that they find suitable.

In short if one person has a right all people should have that right, whether it be marriage, voting or education.

[Flameswroth]

I know.

Long as you're okay with it.

I've come to grips with who and what I am long ago. It's an ironic parallel to the same sort of discoveries that same-sex-attracted individuals are portrayed as having about themselves. Haters gonna hate, the Internet says, and I'm an unapologetic hater. To borrow a page from the Gaga book, "I'm on the right track baby"

[Unhealthy2]

and I propose that they stop using marriage in a way that is not in concordance with its original purpose.

And your purpose is not the original purpose either. Ensuring that property transferred in the desired manner was.

Besides, WHO CARES if something is used in a way other than it's original purpose? Hell, by that logic, computers are bad, because they contain capacitors, which were originally used for the purpose of creating uniform electric fields for electrodynamic experiments. In computers, they are often used for various forms of timing and filtering. That's not their "original purpose"^TM, so it must be immoral. Hell, they also contain software. Software is often written by reusing code for completely new purposes that have absolutely nothing to do with the original purpose of the code. Holy shit! Computers must be extremely immoral!

I guess you should stop using computers, then. In fact, since reusing old parts in new ways is a staple of ALL forms of engineering, you probably shouldn't use any technology at all, lest you condone using all kinds of things in ways contrary to their original purposes.

Oh, I get it, this argument only applies when you want it to. Special pleading FTW!

[Aestalis]

It would be logical, useful and beneficial to society if you look at our social context now, with our culture of rights and all,

And THAT'S all that matters. It is beneficial to our current society. It really doesn't matter how it would have benefited a society five thousand years ago, because that's not the society we live in.

but if you look at the historical but still relevant roots and rock of our society, marriage and the family, it isn't any of these things.

The historical roots of our society thought slavery was okay. Hell, the historical roots that YOU are reaching for condoned killing an entire town because they worshiped a different god and then keeping all the young virgin girls for later raping.

I worded that pretty badly. It would be beneficial for them. Not for society, society should win out.

Yeah, and those roots violate the fundamental rights of humans for no legitimate gain. Some historical roots of our society were shit, some weren't. You can't lump them all together.
The witholding of these rights may deny them human rights (show me the basis of a human right to marry regardless of orientation), but it would be for a legitimate gain. An acceptable payoff.

[Ifreann]

Why are those principles worth preserving? Honestly, I don't give a shit about the word "marriage," but it would make a bunch of people happy, so I see no reason not to let them have it.

That happiness is not outweighed by the detriment it would cause society in the long run. These principles have shaped our societies, societies that have formed around the family unit. The throwing out of these principles would cause instability within the idea of the family and the underlying rock of society.

I see no evidence of this. States that permit marriage between those that cannot or do not wish to have children have yet to suffer societal collapse.

And if the word means so much to them, but many legal rights are already conferred onto them (in liberal democracies anyway), then I really question their motives behind seeking it

It goes to their desire for social equality. Why must the name be different if all other aspects are identical? It seems to be no more than a spiteful attempt to deny equality to gays in some way.

[Aestalis]

That happiness is not outweighed by the detriment it would cause society in the long run. These principles have shaped our societies, societies that have formed around the family unit. The throwing out of these principles would cause instability within the idea of the family and the underlying rock of society.

Proof is required for these claims.

And if the word means so much to them, but many legal rights are already conferred onto them (in liberal democracies anyway), then I really question their motives behind seeking it

There are a huge number of legal rights that only married couples can attain.

Don't have the proof on me, and I know it sounds like I'm evading that argument, but if we get into detail like that where studies and scientific or sociological proof is considered, then we get into arguments over which is more legitimate, which is hard to do.

The rights married couples can obtain belong to those who are having a family that they need to support.

[Unhealthy2]

I worded that pretty badly. It would be beneficial for them. Not for society, society should win out.

Proof that it would harm society?

Yeah, and those roots violate the fundamental rights of humans for no legitimate gain. Some historical roots of our society were shit, some weren't. You can't lump them all together.

Then don't use the historical roots argument. You can't use an argument when it suits you and then disregard the exact same argument later in a place where it doesn't suit you. That's a dishonest tactic and a logical fallacy called "special pleading."

The witholding of these rights may deny them human rights (show me the basis of a human right to marry regardless of orientation), but it would be for a legitimate gain. An acceptable payoff.

Demonstrate the existence of the gain.

[Ifreann]

Even if marriage were conceived with some particular principles in mind, that is no reason for us to alter our laws to abide by those principles now. Besides which, allowing same sex couples to marry strikes me as perfectly logical, useful and beneficial to society.

It would be logical, useful and beneficial to society if you look at our social context now, with our culture of rights and all, but if you look at the historical but still relevant roots and rock of our society, marriage and the family, it isn't any of these things.

As others have pointed out, we live now, not in the past.

[SpectacularSpectacular]

Proof is required for these claims.



There are a huge number of legal rights that only married couples can attain.

Don't have the proof on me, and I know it sounds like I'm evading that argument, but if we get into detail like that where studies and scientific or sociological proof is considered, then we get into arguments over which is more legitimate, which is hard to do.

The rights married couples can obtain belong to those who are having a family that they need to support.

So straight married couples with no children are not offered the rights and benefits of marriage?

[Unhealthy2]

Don't have the proof on me, and I know it sounds like I'm evading that argument,

Then we can disregard these assertions with impunity.

but if we get into detail like that where studies and scientific or sociological proof is considered, then we get into arguments over which is more legitimate, which is hard to do.

What?

The rights married couples can obtain belong to those who are having a family that they need to support.

But only the kinds of families you approve of, right?

[Aestalis]

So if society decrees the purpose of a lightbulb was to rule the country, that is it's new purpose? Or would you think something has gone wrong in someone's chain of reasoning and that a lightbulb should be lighting a room. Shit analogy, but I think it holds water. Society is free to choose how to use objects and institutions, but their real purpose(s) remain unchanged.

And again, I am not redefining it. I don't agree with you're notion that I am changing a definition. Society's "definition" isn't a valid thing. There is an objective definition which I propose society adheres to, and I propose that they stop using marriage in a way that is not in concordance with its original purpose.

And if the 'objective' definition offered by the church is that lightning is gods rage? Shall society adhere to such nonsense in those cases?
The difference here is that a church does not follow a logical course in their formation of definitions, society is forced to do so...As if society was to elect a light-bulb, how long would it be before we realized a mistake may have been made(prepare for cynical snarky response).
And yes, it was a terrible analogy...

A terrible analogy you countered with with a worse one. The church decree on lightning has no effect on the people or on society. Marriage has a huge effect.

Yes, how long would it be for us to realise? I am hoping it is sooner rather than later.

Stop talking about religion. I'm not using the church to justify anything.

[Aestalis]

and I propose that they stop using marriage in a way that is not in concordance with its original purpose.

And your purpose is not the original purpose either. Ensuring that property transferred in the desired manner was.

Besides, WHO CARES if something is used in a way other than it's original purpose? Hell, by that logic, computers are bad, because they contain capacitors, which were originally used for the purpose of creating uniform electric fields for electrodynamic experiments. In computers, they are often used for various forms of timing and filtering. That's not their "original purpose"^TM, so it must be immoral. Hell, they also contain software. Software is often written by reusing code for completely new purposes that have absolutely nothing to do with the original purpose of the code. Holy shit! Computers must be extremely immoral!

I guess you should stop using computers, then. In fact, since reusing old parts in new ways is a staple of ALL forms of engineering, you probably shouldn't use any technology at all, lest you condone using all kinds of things in ways contrary to their original purposes.

Oh, I get it, this argument only applies when you want it to. Special pleading FTW!

Computers aren't something that have underlied and shaped our society like marriage has. They are completely different.

[Tekania]

So if society decrees the purpose of a lightbulb was to rule the country, that is it's new purpose? Or would you think something has gone wrong in someone's chain of reasoning and that a lightbulb should be lighting a room. Shit analogy, but I think it holds water. Society is free to choose how to use objects and institutions, but their real purpose(s) remain unchanged.

Merely because you may not agree with said purpose does not change the fact that a purpose of an object is what people will use it for and agree upon said use.

And again, I am not redefining it. I don't agree with you're notion that I am changing a definition. Society's "definition" isn't a valid thing. There is an objective definition which I propose society adheres to, and I propose that they stop using marriage in a way that is not in concordance with its original purpose.

Language is defined by social usage. Language is an ever evolving thing, your attempt to assert "objective definition" is absolutely fucking absurd, and one of the reason I've always rejected your religion.

[New England 32]

Sorry but i think its wrong. GOd has made everyone and it started with adam and eve. he made a woman and a man to be together and thats how he wants it. we need to obey god and his commandments, because he knows best and loves us and we need to have respect for what he wants. look in the bible and you will see that he even says its for a man and a woman to marry and have offsprings. if he wanted gays and all that then he would have made it possible for them to have babies with each other but they cant it needs to be a boy and a girl thats the only natural psssible way.

[Aestalis]

It would be logical, useful and beneficial to society if you look at our social context now, with our culture of rights and all, but if you look at the historical but still relevant roots and rock of our society, marriage and the family, it isn't any of these things.

So its a good idea now, however in the past its a terrible idea? We learn from the past, we do not live in it.

EDIT: Aside from that you are looking through a limited perspective, regarding marriage, as not all cultures in the past shared the same beliefs for marriage. In-fact even within Christianity there has been a 'less than rock like' foundation for marriage...More of a jumbling group of stolen beliefs and social structures.

Yeah that was worded wrong. I mean that if you look at the historical but still relevant roots and rock of our society, marriage and the family, it isn't logical, useful and beneficial to society to grant them the rights now.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

And your purpose is not the original purpose either. Ensuring that property transferred in the desired manner was.

Besides, WHO CARES if something is used in a way other than it's original purpose? Hell, by that logic, computers are bad, because they contain capacitors, which were originally used for the purpose of creating uniform electric fields for electrodynamic experiments. In computers, they are often used for various forms of timing and filtering. That's not their "original purpose"^TM, so it must be immoral. Hell, they also contain software. Software is often written by reusing code for completely new purposes that have absolutely nothing to do with the original purpose of the code. Holy shit! Computers must be extremely immoral!

I guess you should stop using computers, then. In fact, since reusing old parts in new ways is a staple of ALL forms of engineering, you probably shouldn't use any technology at all, lest you condone using all kinds of things in ways contrary to their original purposes.

Oh, I get it, this argument only applies when you want it to. Special pleading FTW!

Computers aren't something that have underlied and shaped our society like marriage has. They are completely different.

Computers haven't shaped society at all. Nope, not one bit. Let's disregard how they're practically crucial to work, refining communication, "shrinking" the world, enabling new research, and much much more. Nope, not a thing.

[Geenberg]

I don't like it and it isn't good for the development for the country because there will be less children for the generations to come

[Soheran]

The notions of marriage I've offered aren't ahistorical.

Yes, they are. Traditional rules of marriage did not prohibit or void sterile or otherwise childless marriages. Traditional rules of sexual morality did prohibit non-procreative sex, but not out of a desire for childbirth; rather, out of a notion that only procreative sex was "natural" and morally proper. Virtually nobody today proposes restricting infertile or elderly couples from marrying, and the reason is that there is no tradition of that in our culture: the benefits to children provided by marriage are important, but they are not a necessary condition for any given marriage.

We sure can recognise and strengthen childless families, but it doesn't have to be through marriage. Their status as a defacto relationship could and should grant them certain rights, but not marriage rights. We don't allocate it to those that need it most, we allocate it to those who want and can fulfil the obligations and responsibilities of marriage, and who hence deserve the benefits of marriage.

I'm still waiting for a rationale. Okay, fine: if we adopt your conception of marriage, we could find arrangements that would meet some of the human needs of childless families. Great. But why should we adopt your conception in the first place?

The reason our law recognises and provides for children outside of marriage because it would be inhumane not to, I don't think this can be construed as government explicitly equating children born in and out of wedlock. And even if I grant that they are, their rationale simply contradicts the idea of marriage. I'm not saying it should stop, again because that would be inhumane.

My point isn't that we provide for children born out of wedlock. My point is that we already differentiate between child-raising marriages (who get tax credits and free benefits like public education) and childless marriages (who pay the same taxes but get nothing) in a way designed to suit the special circumstances of child-raising. What I don't understand is why you think we have to distinguish maritally between these families.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

Sorry but i think its wrong. GOd has made everyone and it started with adam and eve. he made a woman and a man to be together and thats how he wants it. we need to obey god and his commandments, because he knows best and loves us and we need to have respect for what he wants. look in the bible and you will see that he even says its for a man and a woman to marry and have offsprings. if he wanted gays and all that then he would have made it possible for them to have babies with each other but they cant it needs to be a boy and a girl thats the only natural psssible way.

Sterile people are immoral and disrespectful to god?

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

I don't like it and it isn't good for the development for the country because there will be less children for the generations to come

Because allowing people to marry who would likely otherwise not is going to reduce the amount of children born? Wait what.

[Ifreann]

The rights married couples can obtain belong to those who are having a family that they need to support.

Are you talking about what rights you think married couples have, according to your idea of what marriage is, or the rights they actually do have under the law in some jurisdiction?