What is your view on homosexual rights and why?

[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.

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

This is the definition of marriage. It is objective and unchangeable and hence the only legitimate institution worthy of being called marriage.

[Soheran]

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.

I'm happy to join you in ignoring social trends. Your definition is ahistorical also, but I'm happy to ignore history too.

What I'm curious about is the rationale for this rule. You say that marriage is about strengthening families. I broadly agree. What confuses me is why you think that two adults without children don't constitute a "family" that we should be concerned with recognizing and strengthening. To be sure, there are special interests that arise when you bring children into the picture, but marriage is not a scarce resource and we need not only allocate it to those who need it most; besides, our law does make special provision for children, for instance by providing public education and child tax credits, but it does so for the most part outside of marriage.

[The Kangaroo Republic]

I don't really care about it whether a person is gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. He/She/Herm is still a person and deserves the same rights as any other person on this planet.

[Intangelon]

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

This is the definition of marriage. It is objective and unchangeable and hence the only legitimate institution worthy of being called marriage.

Uh...what now?

[Aestalis]

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.

So marriage has infinite definitions? As long as there is someone to think of a new definition for it, there is a new definition?

[Daircoill]

Depends on the context.

So marriage has infinite definitions? As long as there is someone to think of a new definition for it, there is a new definition?

Short answer: Yes. Same goes for all words. Words are just a symbolic and phonetic representation of an idea. That idea changes from person to person.

[Unhealthy2]

So marriage has infinite definitions? As long as there is someone to think of a new definition for it, there is a new definition?

Are there infinitely many places where it is used in infinitely many ways? Not really.

[Der Teutoniker]

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....

You referenced Leviticus first. If you think it's a good enough source to post (and you did) than OT sources are good enough for refutation.

And isn't that verse the one where Paul was likely talking about the Roman penchant for older dudes having sexual relationships with young boys? Because pretty much no one would find that acceptable.

[Flameswroth]

I think LGBT rights are a pretty cool guy. eh lets fags become next of kin and doesnt afraid of anything.

On a more serious note, I have a personal aversion to the demographics in the above acronym (most especially G's...because L's can be hawt). By virtue of this I don't really mind them not getting the rights, but at the same time I'm not militantly against them getting them either. At the end of the day they deserve them as much as any other group of people, but if they have to fight against the current to get them I'm not going to lose any sleep at night.

[Ifreann]

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

This is the definition of marriage. It is objective and unchangeable and hence the only legitimate institution worthy of being called marriage.

In your opinion, which is not worth much to the rest of us. Anything more concrete to go on?

[Daircoill]

I think LGBT rights are a pretty cool guy. eh lets fags become next of kin and doesnt afraid of anything.

On a more serious note, I have a personal aversion to the demographics in the above acronym (most especially G's...because L's can be hawt). By virtue of this I don't really mind them not getting the rights, but at the same time I'm not militantly against them getting them either. At the end of the day they deserve them as much as any other group of people, but if they have to fight against the current to get them I'm not going to lose any sleep at night.

Apathy wins again?

[Aestalis]

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.

I'm happy to join you in ignoring social trends. Your definition is ahistorical also, but I'm happy to ignore history too.

What I'm curious about is the rationale for this rule. You say that marriage is about strengthening families. I broadly agree. What confuses me is why you think that two adults without children don't constitute a "family" that we should be concerned with recognizing and strengthening. To be sure, there are special interests that arise when you bring children into the picture, but marriage is not a scarce resource and we need not only allocate it to those who need it most; besides, our law does make special provision for children, for instance by providing public education and child tax credits, but it does so for the most part outside of marriage.

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

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.

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.

[Farnhamia]

This is the definition of marriage. It is objective and unchangeable and hence the only legitimate institution worthy of being called marriage.

In your opinion, which is not worth much to the rest of us. Anything more concrete to go on?

What part of "objective and unchangeable" are you having a problem with? If he says that it is so, it is so.

[Flameswroth]

I think LGBT rights are a pretty cool guy. eh lets fags become next of kin and doesnt afraid of anything.

On a more serious note, I have a personal aversion to the demographics in the above acronym (most especially G's...because L's can be hawt). By virtue of this I don't really mind them not getting the rights, but at the same time I'm not militantly against them getting them either. At the end of the day they deserve them as much as any other group of people, but if they have to fight against the current to get them I'm not going to lose any sleep at night.

Apathy wins again?

Well, not entirely.

If you put a piece of paper in front of me, asking me for my vote on whether to give them rights, I wouldn't abstain - I'd vote no. So I'm not completely apathetic, I'm just not so militantly anti-them that I feel the need to swim against the current any more strongly than that. I see the direction things are going in, and I doubt anything could rightly be done to change that. I can't say I'd be happier if they never got the rights, when in truth I'd pretty much be on the same page I'm on now. But I don't like it, and I wouldn't pitch my vote for something I don't like.

[Unhealthy2]

Well, not entirely.

If you put a piece of paper in front of me, asking me for my vote on whether to give them rights, I wouldn't abstain - I'd vote no. So I'm not completely apathetic, I'm just not so militantly anti-them that I feel the need to swim against the current any more strongly than that. I see the direction things are going in, and I doubt anything could rightly be done to change that. I can't say I'd be happier if they never got the rights, when in truth I'd pretty much be on the same page I'm on now. But I don't like it, and I wouldn't pitch my vote for something I don't like.

Why would you take things away from them? What good would that produce to make up for the harm it would cause?

[Beinai]

I'm all for these 'gay rights'. However, I just call them rights due to the fact that heterosexual, homosexual and other orientations should share equal rights. I find that calling them gay rights causes people to see a division inbetween. I have a few gay and bi friends and they say them same.

[Aestalis]

This is the definition of marriage. It is objective and unchangeable and hence the only legitimate institution worthy of being called marriage.

In your opinion, which is not worth much to the rest of us. Anything more concrete to go on?

At the (gradual) "time" of the creation of the institution had underlying principles, and those principles have been built on in ways that don't harm the purpose of the institution. The principles and the purpose of the institution seem logical, useful, and beneficial to society. Building on them more will be possible with future technology, and as long as the principles and purpose is preserved, that's fine but same sex marriage would render the institution void and useless.

[Tekania]

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....

And luckily, again, as I am a firm believer in the Seperation of Church and State due to the fact that I do not believe it is the authority of the civil government to enforce, determine nor dictate religious belief; I can safely ignore your argument as irrelevant in matters of civil law.

[Ifreann]

In your opinion, which is not worth much to the rest of us. Anything more concrete to go on?

What part of "objective and unchangeable" are you having a problem with? If he says that it is so, it is so.

Ayn Rand only got away with that shit because she was hot. The rest of us have to explain ourselves.

[Tekania]

What part of "objective and unchangeable" are you having a problem with? If he says that it is so, it is so.

Ayn Rand only got away with that shit because she was hot. The rest of us have to explain ourselves.

This must be some wholly unfamiliar usage of the word "hot" that I have yet to be introduced to.

[Muffin Button]

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....

You referenced Leviticus first. If you think it's a good enough source to post (and you did) than OT sources are good enough for refutation.

And isn't that verse the one where Paul was likely talking about the Roman penchant for older dudes having sexual relationships with young boys? Because pretty much no one would find that acceptable.

I tend to think that any homosexual would approve of the fact that old dudes and young guys were indeed having relations, and you have a good point about the Leviticus verse i should not have used that and then changed standards.

[SpectacularSpectacular]

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

This is the definition of marriage. It is objective and unchangeable and hence the only legitimate institution worthy of being called marriage.

I find it funny that you tote it as an institution yet your main form of defense for it is a literal definition which is ever-varying throughout history and culture. Exactly what makes you're likened definition the most important one? Is the word so important to the institution itself or is it the ideals that you hold for this institution?

In other words: If you are going to defend an institution via definition than you must accept all definitions(proposed by history and culture) attributed to this institution, not just the ones that support your ideals for this particular institution. However, if you wish to argue that your ideals for this institution are the only ones that should be attributed than I will just stop caring what you say; because frankly I don't care how your ideals would dictate social/civil issues.

And if you are Christian, you folks made your bed with this so its time to sleep in it; since you are the ones who decided it would be a good idea to get government involved in marriage - leading to government benefits which, once you have those, this 'religious institution' (if it ever really was, though I would argue it was a social event/union that religion bogarted*) would become a 'government institution' which can never be subject to discrimination. (if not Christian, substitute 'you' for 'Christian')

*Allow me to further this point: Merely because religion is involved in certain events does not make them religious events, and offers religion no right to absorb such events as traditional institutions no matter how long religions have been involved. It is very common to have religion/religious leaders throughout history involved heavily in the community and social events(which is what marriage first started as, long before Christian marriage and in many other cultures than just western). For instance: Many people once had a religious advisory present during birth, thankfully birth being biological religion was never able to sink its claws into the event and slap a 'tradition' sticker on it...Though I would not be surprised if at some point it has done that.

Sorry for the rant...My point is that an institution cannot be defined 'generally' as there are many culture which will add their own flavor to any giving institution. Also, as marriage is an institution which developed worldwide independent each other (all cultures had union ceremonies), it is preposterous to attempt and slap a "Christian"(or any singular ideal structure) sticker on it.

[Zombie land of awsome]

now i really dont understand anything at all about why 2 guys or 2 girls would want to be married together to me thats just disgusting however i live in america and if two people want to be together i think they should be allowed to do so but this is comming from a 17 year old who hasnt even kissed a girl yet so ....yea

[Unhealthy2]

I tend to think that any homosexual would approve of the fact that old dudes and young guys were indeed having relations, and you have a good point about the Leviticus verse i should not have used that and then changed standards.

Hey! I never installed a muffin button!

[Daircoill]

You referenced Leviticus first. If you think it's a good enough source to post (and you did) than OT sources are good enough for refutation.

And isn't that verse the one where Paul was likely talking about the Roman penchant for older dudes having sexual relationships with young boys? Because pretty much no one would find that acceptable.

I tend to think that any homosexual would approve of the fact that old dudes and young guys were indeed having relations, and you have a good point about the Leviticus verse i should not have used that and then changed standards.

Did you just seriously link ALL homosexuals with pedophiles? That is a deeply offensive, and completely unnecessary statement, to just about any logical thinker.