What is your view on homosexual rights and why?

[Aestalis]

Your argument would be valid if you were arguing with someone who believed the definition of a centuries old institution should change with social norms. You obviously aren't, and I'm not going to lie, my hesitance to change that opinion does somewhat derive from my religious views and the importance marriage holds in my religion, but as you can see I've not used religion in my arguments thus far. Just flagging it.

As I said, the definition of marriage as you have put it is not the same as the reasoning behind it over the past two millennia. If you'd like to believe it was for the purpose of regulating procreation, then go ahead, but do so with the understanding that there's no way to back that up. Marriage existed long before your religion did, and what theories there are about its origins point at regulating access to women, ensuring paternal lineage, and ensuring proper inheritance of property. Beyond that, nothing is "proven," but the definition of this "centuries old institution" has changed a great many times since then. If you want marriage to go back to what it was originally, as you claim, then let's go back to what it was originally and see how people like that.

You may think I'm about to backtrack but now that I understand what you're saying I can respond to it differently. Marriage has changed but always within the scope of the definition and the overall purpose. "Access to women, ensuring paternal lineage, and ensuring proper inheritance of property" were the proto-marriages if you'd like, and if you look at them, they all contribute towards the ultimate goal of facilitating the stable family. Ensuring you children are yours and transferring property have to happen for such families to exist, in most cases anyway. Those ideas of marriage don't discredit mine, they run in parallel with it.

[Umbra Ac Silentium]

Homosexuals have the same exact rights as everybody else. What they're wanting is special treatment.

Adopting kids is special rights? Marrying people you love is special rights?

[Der Teutoniker]

Homosexuals have the same exact rights as everybody else. What they're wanting is special treatment.

Though I agree from a technical standpoint with the first sentence, the second sentence doesn't really hold water.

It is right, fair, just, and reasonable to allow same-sex marriage.

That being said, I would oppose a situation in which the acronym community was trying to get genuine favoritism, and special treatment. When, and if that day comes, I'll oppose it. Until then, though, I'll just support same-sex marriage.

[Ifreann]

Why?

Marriage is the bedrock of our society. Our population has grown and flourished around the family unit, and our societies have developed around the family unit, reinforced by the institution of marriage.

Various societies around the world and throughout history have had very different ideas about marriage. Not all of them restricted it to men and women. Some of them restricted it even further.

Even disregarding the fact that the institution of marriage is not a static thing, there is no reason why same-sex couple cannot have families in the same way opposite-sex couples can. At least, no good one that I am aware of.

The institution was conceived to, and has been maintained to, regulate procreation and the continuation of the human species.

Nonsense. Marriage is not restricted to those couples who can procreate. Marriages aren't dissolved when the wife reaches menopause. Men who are infertile aren't told they can't ever marry. Nor is procreation prohibited to those who are not married. Perhaps it was at some other time, but that only goes to my point that the institution of marriage is not static.

It has existed for centuries to facilitate families and kinship.

And to facilitate the trade of women as commodities. A daughter, being the property of her father, would be married off to another man, thus becoming his property.

The forming of families is the key function of marriage, and extending the scope of marriage to those who are biologically unable to procreate makes marriage itself redundant.

Are you saying that a married couple without children is not a family? And I repeat, opposite-sex couples who can not have children are allowed to marry. Opposite-sex couples who can have children are not required to if they marry.

The upholding marriage between man and woman simply recognises important and inherent differences between the two sexes. There is nothing unequal about recognising difference.

What? How does marriage recognise differences between males and females?

You've been claiming many things about what marriage has been for, historically, and while I question those claims, I also question their relevance. Assuming for the moment that marriage does recognise differences between the sexes, why must it be so? Why can marriage not simply establish two people as married, and each other's next of kin, with all the related legal consequences? Why can a same-sex couple not be each other's next of kin? Why can they not file taxes jointly? Why can one not be given the power to make medical decisions for the other if necessary?

The government does not and should not regulate or concern itself with love, and if you argue that those who love each other should be able to be married to announce that love, then I seriously wonder about their notion of love that needs paper, formal ceremony, or nomenclature to justify itself.

I don't see love as having anything to do with it.

[Ecans]

There should be no discrimination based on sexual preference at all. All citizens must carry the same rights and responsibilities. On gay marriage, if they wish to assume all the duties of marriage, who are we to deny them? The argument against reminds me of the howls of dissent when colourized movies were introduced. The original still exists so why the big fuss? They deserve to be just as miserable in marriage as the rest of us!!

[Der Teutoniker]

I laughed so hard I started getting strange looks from people.

Good.

Also, as soon as I made the post wherein I assumed you were straight, I looked in your sig just to see if you had that information in there. Seeing nothing, I felt reasonably safe.

I just now saw the "About me" spoiler. Wish I would've seen it sooner! Lol.

[Der Teutoniker]

They deserve to be just as miserable in marriage as the rest of us!!

Actually... I'm very happy in my marriage.

But with a 50+% divorce rate... I can't exactly say that your jest is entirely wrong... sadly.

[Daircoill]

I laughed so hard I started getting strange looks from people.

Good.

Also, as soon as I made the post wherein I assumed you were straight, I looked in your sig just to see if you had that information in there. Seeing nothing, I felt reasonably safe.

I just now saw the "About me" spoiler. Wish I would've seen it sooner! Lol.

CURSE YOU EYES! YOU FAIL ME AGAIN!!!

[Outer Altoonia]

I don't think homosexuals have rights. To qualify that statement, I don't believe in rights as an intrinsic quality of human beings, so I don't think anyone has rights.

[Ifreann]

I don't think homosexuals have rights. To qualify that statement, I don't believe in rights as an intrinsic quality of human beings, so I don't think anyone has rights.

What about legal rights, granted by governments? Do they not count?

[Der Teutoniker]

I don't think homosexuals have rights. To qualify that statement, I don't believe in rights as an intrinsic quality of human beings, so I don't think anyone has rights.

Great. That's not really the question though.

The question has more to do with rights granted by government.

[Aestalis]

Even disregarding the fact that the institution of marriage is not a static thing, there is no reason why same-sex couple cannot have families in the same way opposite-sex couples can. At least, no good one that I am aware of.

This is where our main difference lies, I think. I believe that the definition of marriage is static and that modern definitions stray from the proper definition. Societal norms should not affect the definition, although they are free by law to act against it.

Nonsense. Marriage is not restricted to those couples who can procreate. Marriages aren't dissolved when the wife reaches menopause. Men who are infertile aren't told they can't ever marry. Nor is procreation prohibited to those who are not married. Perhaps it was at some other time, but that only goes to my point that the institution of marriage is not static.

For practicality reasons, they aren’t dissolved when childbearing ability ceases, but even then, ceasing the marriage wouldn’t be in the best interest of the family, which marriage aims to provide: the stable and happy family. Men who are infertile should be told they cannot marry. Again, the static argument arises.

And to facilitate the trade of women as commodities. A daughter, being the property of her father, would be married off to another man, thus becoming his property.

And securing that she stays with him and that her children are his. While this is probably not something I advocate continuing, the principles behind it I do.

Are you saying that a married couple without children is not a family? And I repeat, opposite-sex couples who can not have children are allowed to marry. Opposite-sex couples who can have children are not required to if they marry..

It isn’t a family under the proper definition. Again, opposite sex partners who cannot have children should no be married under the proper definition, and opposite sex partners should be encouraged to have children once married, otherwise the marriage is useless.

What? How does marriage recognise differences between males and females?

You've been claiming many things about what marriage has been for, historically, and while I question those claims, I also question their relevance. Assuming for the moment that marriage does recognise differences between the sexes, why must it be so? Why can marriage not simply establish two people as married, and each other's next of kin, with all the related legal consequences? Why can a same-sex couple not be each other's next of kin? Why can they not file taxes jointly? Why can one not be given the power to make medical decisions for the other if necessary?

Because, full legal relationship rights aren’t the point of marriage. The power to make medical decisions for one another could be granted through defacto relationships, but the transfer of property, the idea of next of kin, and the financial benefits that marriage grants should be given to legitimate families that fall under the definition of marriage.

I don't see love as having anything to do with it.

I agree.

[Gweynavere]

I think LGBT rights should be extended to the respective communities. Especially transgender people because it seems like they have been completely dropped from most forums - lack of information makes it hard for people to accept them as well. In five states, as much as some transgender might like to change his or her birth certificate to identify with their gender, they can't. And for a lot of places, the cost of doing anything as a step to legally being recognized as a male or female involves getting surgeries so that they look more like the gender people see them trying to be. It's hard and costly and dangerous not to mention it can leave awful scars. I think, personally, that it is a deterrent for transgender people and that's just sad.

Now for the gays, lesbians, bi-sexuals and pansexuals, rights, rights, rights! They're still people and should be treated no less and for their respective partners, it sucks that the rights of a marital union is denied to them. I would hate to not be informed if my partner were hurt. Plus, estate and childcare and support and inheritance is muddled. So, hey, people need rights.

Religion and pseudoscience need to keep out of the government workings - religion has no place, and I think that would be hard to argue anyway.

[Unhealthy2]

Even disregarding the fact that the institution of marriage is not a static thing, there is no reason why same-sex couple cannot have families in the same way opposite-sex couples can. At least, no good one that I am aware of.

This is where our main difference lies, I think. I believe that the definition of marriage is static and that modern definitions stray from the proper definition. Societal norms should not affect the definition, although they are free by law to act against it.

Nonsense. Marriage is not restricted to those couples who can procreate. Marriages aren't dissolved when the wife reaches menopause. Men who are infertile aren't told they can't ever marry. Nor is procreation prohibited to those who are not married. Perhaps it was at some other time, but that only goes to my point that the institution of marriage is not static.

For practicality reasons, they aren’t dissolved when childbearing ability ceases, but even then, ceasing the marriage wouldn’t be in the best interest of the family, which marriage aims to provide: the stable and happy family. Men who are infertile should be told they cannot marry. Again, the static argument arises.

And to facilitate the trade of women as commodities. A daughter, being the property of her father, would be married off to another man, thus becoming his property.

And securing that she stays with him and that her children are his. While this is probably not something I advocate continuing, the principles behind it I do.

Are you saying that a married couple without children is not a family? And I repeat, opposite-sex couples who can not have children are allowed to marry. Opposite-sex couples who can have children are not required to if they marry..

It isn’t a family under the proper definition. Again, opposite sex partners who cannot have children should no be married under the proper definition, and opposite sex partners should be encouraged to have children once married, otherwise the marriage is useless.

What? How does marriage recognise differences between males and females?

You've been claiming many things about what marriage has been for, historically, and while I question those claims, I also question their relevance. Assuming for the moment that marriage does recognise differences between the sexes, why must it be so? Why can marriage not simply establish two people as married, and each other's next of kin, with all the related legal consequences? Why can a same-sex couple not be each other's next of kin? Why can they not file taxes jointly? Why can one not be given the power to make medical decisions for the other if necessary?

Because, full legal relationship rights aren’t the point of marriage. The power to make medical decisions for one another could be granted through defacto relationships, but the transfer of property, the idea of next of kin, and the financial benefits that marriage grants should be given to legitimate families that fall under the definition of marriage.

I don't see love as having anything to do with it.

I agree.

The idea of a "proper definition" is somewhat problematic in and of itself, but the idea of a definition being proper even though it is NOT the standard definition is downright incoherent.

[Aestalis]

This is where our main difference lies, I think. I believe that the definition of marriage is static and that modern definitions stray from the proper definition. Societal norms should not affect the definition, although they are free by law to act against it.



For practicality reasons, they aren’t dissolved when childbearing ability ceases, but even then, ceasing the marriage wouldn’t be in the best interest of the family, which marriage aims to provide: the stable and happy family. Men who are infertile should be told they cannot marry. Again, the static argument arises.



And securing that she stays with him and that her children are his. While this is probably not something I advocate continuing, the principles behind it I do.



It isn’t a family under the proper definition. Again, opposite sex partners who cannot have children should no be married under the proper definition, and opposite sex partners should be encouraged to have children once married, otherwise the marriage is useless.



Because, full legal relationship rights aren’t the point of marriage. The power to make medical decisions for one another could be granted through defacto relationships, but the transfer of property, the idea of next of kin, and the financial benefits that marriage grants should be given to legitimate families that fall under the definition of marriage.



I agree.

The idea of a "proper definition" is somewhat problematic in and of itself, but the idea of a definition being proper even though it is NOT the standard definition is downright incoherent.

Who decides the "standard definition" of a pre- and trans-national societal institution?

[Unhealthy2]

Who decides the "standard definition" of a pre- and trans-national societal institution?

The standard definition evolves over time according to use within a given context. Language has no transcendental meaning. Words are arbitrary. It's that which is signified by words which has meaning.

[Aestalis]

Who decides the "standard definition" of a pre- and trans-national societal institution?

The standard definition evolves over time according to use within a given context. Language has no transcendental meaning. Words are arbitrary. It's that which is signified by words which has meaning.

I agree on the language aspect. By definition, I mean purpose and intent, and I think I have made that clear in my usage of "definition."

But still, what society are you basing this on? Spain believes marriage has evolved to include same sex partners, Australia has not. Which is the standard definition?

[Muffin Button]

Now none of this is to hurt anyone, You asked the question and i am answering it, but I am stongly angainst them and i shall prove to you with two scripture verses why homosexualality is a bad thing, now these are toned way down from other verses i could have used.

Romans 1:27 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.

Yes, but we don't seem to listen to the rest of Leviticus, not today anyway:

Any person who curseth his father or mother must be killed
~Leviticus 20:9

People who have flat noses, or are blind or lame, cannot go to an altar of God
~Leviticus 21:17-18

The eating of fat is prohibited forever
~Leviticus 3:17

Entrance into the assembly of the Lord was granted only to those with complete testicles
~Deuteronomy 23:1

Stubborn children were to be stoned, and the stoning was to be instigated by their parents
~Deuteronomy 21:18-21

What makes the laws on homosexuality any more pertinent today than those above? That's before I even get into all the slavery stuff in the Bible, not to mention the polygamy.

well you see there are two books and if you ever read them then you would know. the old testament is exactly that ol,d and the new testament is the new law of the land. if you look, the new testament does not say anything on not being able to eat pork and remember what i said these where toned way down if you want me to add 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 i will but....

[Daircoill]

Why is it that these topics ALWAYS degenerate into a Dictionary measuring contest?
Words are dynamic, and the meaning of a word changes over time. The definition of some words - such as marriage and love, will vary from person to person. No definition is more correct than another, and spending time arguing over whos definition is the most correct serves to do nothing but take away the focus from the real issues being debated.

[Hypparchia]

They should be given all the same rights as everyone else. There is no logical reason to deny them these rights. Can anyone give a good reason, one that does not invoke the name of a god or holy book or something of the sort?

Many of them dress badly, talk in a very nasty way and lack manners. That's enough for me to discriminate anyone. I hate faggots, no matter what their sexual preferences are.

[Intangelon]

What makes them different then the next person when it comes to basic rights? None. They should get all the rights of heterosexuals. However for marriage rights, churches should also have the right to deny marrying them. which is fine as a church isn't needed to marry.

Uh...churches already HAVE that right.

[Pristine Hawk People]

I'm indifferent as long as we aren't arresting and/or stoning them and taking away their voting rights.

[Ifreann]

Even disregarding the fact that the institution of marriage is not a static thing, there is no reason why same-sex couple cannot have families in the same way opposite-sex couples can. At least, no good one that I am aware of.

This is where our main difference lies, I think. I believe that the definition of marriage is static and that modern definitions stray from the proper definition. Societal norms should not affect the definition, although they are free by law to act against it.

Then the question ultimately becomes, why should your notion of marriage be the legally recognised one?

[Tekania]

No, allowing infertile couples to marry is a distortion of what marriage is definitionally. I would propose we go back to the definition. I'm not redefining marriage, I'm expressing the desire for the definition of marriage proper to be adhered to.

Any alteration of what it is at present is a definitional "distortion". Whether you like it or not, you're in fact attempting to "redefine it". Now redefining a word is perfectly legitimate, there are valid logical reasons to dismiss present accepted definitions of words in favour of other definitions, I've advocated that myself; but your attempt to posit this idea that you're not in fact "redefining" the term is disingenuous, no presently accepted definition of the word "marriage" necessitates that procreation be a component... Thus your attempt to assert one is in fact a redefinition of the word as used in the modern language, just as much as inclusion of opposite sex partners is a redefinition.

I can see compelling logical reasons to redefine the term as used in modern English to include same-sex couples, but little compelling reason to redefine it to only be inclusive of reproductive pairs, as at present there is no need nor even a foreseeable need whereby our species is not reproducing enough to maintain a sustainable population. Not that reproduction would need to factor there, as humans are capable of reproducing with or without "marriage".

[Unhealthy2]

But still, what society are you basing this on? Spain believes marriage has evolved to include same sex partners, Australia has not. Which is the standard definition?

Depends on the context.