Gay Marriage

[Avenio]

Tut, tut. You think so small, friend. You must think larger. What benefit does society gain by redefining our customs to fit 3-5% of the population? Very little. The minority must acquiesce to the majority.

It requires no redefinition of customs, however. Traditional marriage, which is centered around church rights and the like, will not change; the legal recognition of couple-hood, which is, at its heart, inane bureaucracy, is really what same-sex marriage advocates want.

On an unrelated note, the accusation of being 'small-minded' is ironic considering your views about minority rights. Amusingly so.

[Dyakovo]

Can two people of the same sex get married? No; it would be as ridiculous as two dogs getting married.

Because, like dogs, homosexuals aren't people…
*nods*

[Grave_n_idle]

Rubbish.

Then, there's no reason for the state to recognize marriages . . .

More rubbish.

The state has considerable advantage to recognition of families even without children - because the state craves stability, and family structures increase stability.

[Bottle]

2 men cant have babies together. ergo a man man relationship is not as valid as a man woman relationship because they cannot do the same things.

On behalf of my friends, Matt and Stef, who cannot have children together, fuck right off with that nonsense.

I apologize in advance if this borders on flaming, and I will take a warning if I deserve it, but fuck anybody who insults infertile couples, or couples who are childless by choice, or couples who choose to adopt rather than having biological kids, by suggesting that marriage is only marriage if it makes babies. Fuck everything about that sideways with a dead porcupine.

Do couples who desperately want kids and can't have them really need you to ALSO spit on their relationship as not being "real" marriage? Do couples who choose to adopt really need you to imply that their families are somehow less valid, less real, or less loving?

And do the rest of us really need to cater to the kind of hateful, hurtful, ignorant people who would presume to say crap like that?

Personally, I think that ignoring and mocking homophobes will do more to promote the health, safety, and continuation of the human species than any amount of forced heterosexual breeding would do. Ignorance like what we are seeing in this thread causes more harm, more sickness, more death, and more danger to the human race than any amount of buttfucking or pussy eating could ever do.

So really, deeply and truly, from the bottom of my heart, fuck that noise.

[Takaram]

Neither should marriages be. Even if your anti-Christian assertion that they're somehow bad for the state is true, it's irrelevant for exactly the reasons I gave above.

Gay relationships are neither bad nor good for the state. Heterosexual relationships are good for the state. Therefore, heterosexual marriages are recognized and gay marriages aren't. It's a pretty simple concept.

Homosexual marriage would allow a large number of two-parent houses for children to be raised in.

[Archem States]

His reasoning is sound. The vast majority of heterosexual couples can (and will) produce children, which benefits society. Homosexual couples cannot procreate naturally. Giving preference to the natural order is logical. Furthermore, there is no "right" to marriage. Either something is a right (and you always have it) or something is not a right (and you don't).

WRONG. The fact that homosexuals cannot 'naturally' reproduce helps to control an overburgeoning population that is growing out of control. Not being able to have children is just as natural and in our circumstancces is probably of greater use to the state than more children would be. Not that I'm saying they shouldn't have the right.

Giving preference to the natural order is logical

In these times the more logical choice to give preference to is those who cannot have children, so that we might rein in our out of control population boom.

[Bluth Corporation]

Neither should marriages be. Even if your anti-Christian assertion that they're somehow bad for the state is true, it's irrelevant for exactly the reasons I gave above.

Gay relationships are neither bad nor good for the state. Heterosexual relationships are good for the state. Therefore, heterosexual marriages are recognized and gay marriages aren't. It's a pretty simple concept.

I fear that you fail to understand the meaning of the word "should" that I used in the post I quoted.

No one denies the fact that homosexual marriages are forbidden. The question is whether that should continue to be the case in the future.

Your argument that homosexual marriage is not good for the state, even if it is true, is irrelevant, because whether or not something is good for the state is not the valid standard for deciding these things, since it assumes that the state is our master rather than our servant.

[Dyakovo]

Can two people of the same sex get married? No; it would be as ridiculous as two dogs getting married.

thank you a voice of reason.

[Grave_n_idle]

Tut, tut. You think so small, friend. You must think larger. What benefit does society gain by redefining our customs to fit 3-5% of the population? Very little. The minority must acquiesce to the majority.

It requires no redefinition of customs, however. Traditional marriage, which is centered around church rights and the like, will not change; the legal recognition of couple-hood, which is, at its heart, inane bureaucracy, is really what same-sex marriage advocates want.

On an unrelated note, the accusation of being 'small-minded' is ironic considering your views about minority rights. Amusingly so.

'Traditional marriage' is a nonsense. 'Tradition' has allowed the exchange of partners as property, allowed marriage-against-will, made marriage a punishment for rape, and allowed polygamy.

'Tradition' is one of the worst arguments against marriage equality.

[Salandriagado]

His reasoning is sound. The vast majority of heterosexual couples can (and will) produce children, which benefits society. Homosexual couples cannot procreate naturally. Giving preference to the natural order is logical. Furthermore, there is no "right" to marriage. Either something is a right (and you always have it) or something is not a right (and you don't).

The bold is the problem. More people definitively does not benefit society. Additionally, there is a right to marriage, and the US courts and others worldwide have confirmed it.

[Bluth Corporation]

It requires no redefinition of customs, however. Traditional marriage, which is centered around church rights and the like, will not change; the legal recognition of couple-hood, which is, at its heart, inane bureaucracy, is really what same-sex marriage advocates want.

On an unrelated note, the accusation of being 'small-minded' is ironic considering your views about minority rights. Amusingly so.

'Traditional marriage' is a nonsense. 'Tradition' has allowed the exchange of partners as property, allowed marriage-against-will, made marriage a punishment for rape, and allowed polygamy.

'Tradition' is one of the worst arguments against marriage equality.

Depending on cultural context, in fact, "tradition" has often recognized same-sex marriages as equal or even preferred them.

[Archem States]

So infertile straight couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.
*nods*

Why is someone's fertility any of the government's business?

The government knows same-sex couples can't procreate; hypothetically, how do you propose the government would figure out which heterosexual couples are and aren't fertile?

You say that the government should recognise only couples that can have children and then swing right back round and say that fertility is none of their business.

[Dyakovo]

His reasoning is sound. The vast majority of heterosexual couples can (and will) produce children, which benefits society. Homosexual couples cannot procreate naturally. Giving preference to the natural order is logical. Furthermore, there is no "right" to marriage. Either something is a right (and you always have it) or something is not a right (and you don't).

SCOTUS disagrees...
Also, if you are so opposed to people doing things that are "unnatural" what are you doing posting on an internet forum?

[Noveros Prime]

'Traditional marriage' is a nonsense. 'Tradition' has allowed the exchange of partners as property, allowed marriage-against-will, made marriage a punishment for rape, and allowed polygamy.

'Tradition' is one of the worst arguments against marriage equality.

Tradition sustains a people. Destroy its traditions and you destroy its people. And what, pray tell, is wrong with polygamy? Surely a staunch advocate of gay rights such as yourself would never discriminate against someone based on his sexual preference.

More people definitively does not benefit society. Additionally, there is a right to marriage, and the US courts and others worldwide have confirmed it.

The U.S. courts are immensely pozzed; their opinions are invalid. (Either way, even if there is a right to marriage, marriage is not defined as a same-sex partnership. Ergo, no right to gay marriage.)

[Archem States]

Rubbish.

Then, there's no reason for the state to recognize marriages . . .

Very true, we should do away with marriage altogether. Most people get divorced nowadays anyway, right? Your logic leads only down this path, my friend.

[Dyakovo]

So infertile straight couples shouldn't be allowed to marry.
*nods*

Why is someone's fertility any of the government's business?

The government knows same-sex couples can't procreate; hypothetically, how do you propose the government would figure out which heterosexual couples are and aren't fertile?

You tell me… It was your argument taken to its logical conclusion.

[Noveros Prime]

In fact, I do support removing the state from marriage altogether. Marriage should not offer any legal benefits.

[Polruan]

The bold is the problem. More people definitively does not benefit society. Additionally, there is a right to marriage, and the US courts and others worldwide have confirmed it.

Okay, but how that right works depends on how it's defined. You can't just say "As it's between two people it ought to apply to any conceivable mix of two people regardless of sex" because that's jumping the gun.

There might be a right, in a country, to free education, but that only applies if you're under a certain age.

[Salandriagado]

'Traditional marriage' is a nonsense. 'Tradition' has allowed the exchange of partners as property, allowed marriage-against-will, made marriage a punishment for rape, and allowed polygamy.

'Tradition' is one of the worst arguments against marriage equality.

Tradition sustains a people. Destroy its traditions and you destroy its people. And what, pray tell, is wrong with polygamy? Surely a staunch advocate of gay rights such as yourself would never discriminate against someone based on his sexual preference.

More people definitively does not benefit society. Additionally, there is a right to marriage, and the US courts and others worldwide have confirmed it.

The U.S. courts are immensely pozzed; their opinions are invalid. (Either way, even if there is a right to marriage, marriage is not defined as a same-sex partnership. Ergo, no right to gay marriage.)

The point is that if he wants to make an argument from "tradition", he has to accept all of those things as well.

Who defines "marriage"? If the state, then it is not defined as not including homosexuals. If religion, then I just created a religion that defines marriage as purely between two people of the same sex. Therefore, heterosexual marriages are invalid.

[Archem States]

Neither should marriages be. Even if your anti-Christian assertion that they're somehow bad for the state is true, it's irrelevant for exactly the reasons I gave above.

Gay relationships are neither bad nor good for the state. Heterosexual relationships are good for the state. Therefore, heterosexual marriages are recognized and gay marriages aren't. It's a pretty simple concept.

Let me steal from you for a second here:

Averagely smart people are neither good nor bad for the state, clever people are good for the state. Therefore, we should discriminate against anyone with an IQ under 150. It's a pretty simple concept.

Sound familiar?

[Dyakovo]

Neither should marriages be. Even if your anti-Christian assertion that they're somehow bad for the state is true, it's irrelevant for exactly the reasons I gave above.

Gay relationships are neither bad nor good for the state. Heterosexual relationships are good for the state. Therefore, heterosexual marriages are recognized and gay marriages aren't. It's a pretty simple concept.

Simple, yes. Logical and/or correct, no.

[Grave_n_idle]

'Traditional marriage' is a nonsense. 'Tradition' has allowed the exchange of partners as property, allowed marriage-against-will, made marriage a punishment for rape, and allowed polygamy.

'Tradition' is one of the worst arguments against marriage equality.

Tradition sustains a people. Destroy its traditions and you destroy its people.

Horseshit.

Worse, irrelevant horseshit.

And what, pray tell, is wrong with polygamy? Surely a staunch advocate of gay rights such as yourself would never discriminate against someone based on his sexual preference.

Missing the point, my friend. 'Tradition' of polygamy is pretty obviously an argument against marriage between one man and one woman.

[Noveros Prime]

Equating traditional marriage to eugenics is a bit of a stretch.

[Archem States]

2 men cant have babies together. ergo a man man relationship is not as valid as a man woman relationship because they cannot do the same things.

On behalf of my friends, Matt and Stef, who cannot have children together, fuck right off with that nonsense.

I apologize in advance if this borders on flaming, and I will take a warning if I deserve it, but fuck anybody who insults infertile couples, or couples who are childless by choice, or couples who choose to adopt rather than having biological kids, by suggesting that marriage is only marriage if it makes babies. Fuck everything about that sideways with a dead porcupine.

Do couples who desperately want kids and can't have them really need you to ALSO spit on their relationship as not being "real" marriage? Do couples who choose to adopt really need you to imply that their families are somehow less valid, less real, or less loving?

And do the rest of us really need to cater to the kind of hateful, hurtful, ignorant people who would presume to say crap like that?

Personally, I think that ignoring and mocking homophobes will do more to promote the health, safety, and continuation of the human species than any amount of forced heterosexual breeding would do. Ignorance like what we are seeing in this thread causes more harm, more sickness, more death, and more danger to the human race than any amount of buttfucking or pussy eating could ever do.

So really, deeply and truly, from the bottom of my heart, fuck that noise.

This gets a thumbs up and a hug

[Christian Democrats]

No one denies the fact that homosexual marriages are forbidden.

I deny that "fact." A number of homosexuals marry each other; most of these marriages, however, are not recognized.

(Polygamy and child marriage are banned; gay marriage isn't recognized. There's a difference.)