Same-Sex Marriage: Point of View

[Christian Democrats]

It is not a necessary condition of the state of being a man or a woman that you are complemented by the opposite gender.

It is not a necessary condition of human relationships that all attention should be devoted to a single partner.

It does not really matter what is necessary. We should be concerned with what is best.

It is not a necessary condition of driving that an individual be at least 16, yet we set that as the driving age because it seems best.

Also, women and men do complement each other.

Which means you're claiming men are incapable of loving men in the same way as women. Which is inherently sexist.

Men are incapable of loving men and women are incapable of loving women in the same way as men and women can love each other.

My view is not sexist because it does not posit that one sex is inherently superior in any way to the other.

Prove to me that the inherently sexist concept of complimentarianism is valid, has a basis in science (again, peer-reviewed, unbiased, scientific sources), and that marriage has anything to do with reproduction (which is what you seem to be getting at), and I might be inclined to grant that point to you.

First, my views are not complementarian except in the most narrow sense. Even if I did embrace complementarianism in its widest societal applications, that would not necessarily be sexist if men and women had roles that were equal in their contributions.

Second, if marriage had nothing to do with reproduction, then we would allow individuals to marry siblings, cousins, uncles, aunts, children, parents, and grandparents. Also, we probably would abolish the marriage age.

[Zweite Alaje]

I am responding!!! How dare you tell me to shut me flap!!! You don't tell me shit!!!



I'm sure people want hitmen too, just because we want something doesn't mean we should have it.

Appraently I just did.

You have not shown a single cause for any of your statements, merely unsourced assertions that these things are true. Your argument boils down to "It's yucky because I say so and you are gross and evil people who disagree." Show a source, or stop arguing.

Apparently I'm still arguing.

I never said anything towards the other posters in this thread, so I don't know where you're getting that jive from.

Anyway, here you go.

http://www.avert.org/prostitution-aids.htm

[Individuality-ness]

Second, if marriage had nothing to do with reproduction, then we would allow individuals to marry siblings, cousins, uncles, aunts, children, parents, and grandparents. Also, we probably would abolish the marriage age.

Then why do people who are infertile marry each other?

[Anachronous Rex]

Second, if marriage had nothing to do with reproduction, then we would allow individuals to marry siblings, cousins, uncles, aunts, children, parents, and grandparents. Also, we probably would abolish the marriage age.

Then why do people who are infertile marry each other?

Or elderly women.

"Sorry grandma, this note from your doctor says no more babies for you. I guess you're just going to have to spend the rest of your life alone."

[Christian Democrats]

Second, if marriage had nothing to do with reproduction, then we would allow individuals to marry siblings, cousins, uncles, aunts, children, parents, and grandparents. Also, we probably would abolish the marriage age.

Then why do people who are infertile marry each other?

As I said, men and women complement each other.

Marriage does not have everything to do with reproduction; although, that certainly is important.

[Individuality-ness]

Then why do people who are infertile marry each other?

As I said, men and women complement each other.

Marriage does not have everything to do with reproduction; although, that certainly is important.

Complement each other how?

Then why do people who do not wish to have children ever get married?

[Essos]

It is not a necessary condition of the state of being a man or a woman that you are complemented by the opposite gender.

It is not a necessary condition of human relationships that all attention should be devoted to a single partner.

It does not really matter what is necessary. We should be concerned with what is best.

It is not a necessary condition of driving that an individual be at least 16, yet we set that as the driving age because it seems best.

Also, women and men do complement each other.

Is it best that homosexuals be forced to go against their natural desires? That seems pretty bad to me.

Show a source that will demonstrate that it is best for all relationships to be purely heterosexual binary relationships.

Basically, you're trying to cloak your junk religious beliefs in junk science, and it's not working out. You have no sources, or you would have shown them when we asked for them in the first place.

[Zweite Alaje]

Then why do people who are infertile marry each other?

As I said, men and women complement each other.

Marriage does not have everything to do with reproduction; although, that certainly is important.

Then you have no objection to gay marriage. *pats CD on the back

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

As I said, men and women complement each other.

Marriage does not have everything to do with reproduction; although, that certainly is important.

Complement each other how?

Then why do people who do not wish to have children ever get married?

Shhhh, let him remain in his Lala Land a bit longer.

[Individuality-ness]

Complement each other how?

Then why do people who do not wish to have children ever get married?

Shhhh, let him remain in his Lala Land a bit longer.

No. It's time for him to wake up and see reality in a progressive, liberal, sex positive society.

[Hathradic States]

As I said, men and women complement each other.

Marriage does not have everything to do with reproduction; although, that certainly is important.

Complement each other how?

Then why do people who do not wish to have children ever get married?

Tab-D, Slot-C, keep moving until Tab-D no longer works. Or, at least, that what I think he is refering to.

Taxes. *nods* The only reason to get married.

[Christian Democrats]

As I said, men and women complement each other.

Marriage does not have everything to do with reproduction; although, that certainly is important.

Complement each other how?

Then why do people who do not wish to have children ever get married?

1. I would say that men and women are the anatomical and psychological complements of one another.

2. I do not think fertile couples who intend never to have children ought to marry.

[Transhuman Proteus]

Which means you're claiming men are incapable of loving men in the same way as women. Which is inherently sexist.

Men are incapable of loving men and women are incapable of loving women in the same way as men and women can love each other.

First - if that were true, so what? I mean lets be fraking honest here - emotions aren't standardised amongst heterosexuals, you think every heterosexual couple that marries "loves" each other in the same way?

Second - I'd be interested in the emotional or whatever studies that show the romantic love a homosexual man has for another man is in someway discernably different than what a heterosexual man feels for a woman.

Second, if marriage had nothing to do with reproduction, then we would allow individuals to marry siblings, cousins, uncles, aunts, children, parents, and grandparents. Also, we probably would abolish the marriage age.

Except in many places people can marry cousins. And throughout history there have been many times when close relatives have married each other. And that in many places it is practically illegal for a brother and sister to be together sexually whether they are married or not - the issue there transcends marriage.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Shhhh, let him remain in his Lala Land a bit longer.

No. It's time for him to wake up and see reality in a progressive, liberal, sex positive society.

I was kidding with you, Indi. o.o

[Individuality-ness]

No. It's time for him to wake up and see reality in a progressive, liberal, sex positive society.

I was kidding with you, Indi. o.o

I was continuing on with the joke.... I think...

[Individuality-ness]

Complement each other how?

Then why do people who do not wish to have children ever get married?

1. I would say that men and women are the anatomical and psychological complements of one another.

2. I do not think fertile couples who intend never to have children ought to marry.

1. [citation needed] Especially for the psychological part.

2. Why not?

[Transhuman Proteus]

Then why do people who are infertile marry each other?

As I said, men and women complement each other.

Marriage does not have everything to do with reproduction; although, that certainly is important.

And so do men and men, and women and women it seems. I'm waiting for some evidence the way a man compliments another when they are homosexuals is in some significant way different to that which occurs with heterosexuals, thus forming any sort of basis to deny them marriage rights.

[Zweite Alaje]

Shhhh, let him remain in his Lala Land a bit longer.

No. It's time for him to wake up and see reality in a progressive, liberal, sex positive society.

Those two terms shouldn't be in the same sentence as progressive.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

1. I would say that men and women are the anatomical and psychological complements of one another.

2. I do not think fertile couples who intend never to have children ought to marry.

1. [citation needed] Especially for the psychological part.

2. Why not?

Because he has this Medieval idea that marriage is solely for the purpose of having kids. Forget companionship or a couple's desire for other things. No. If you marry and don't have children, you're terrible.

It also shows that he has no true understanding of what marriage is about.

[Anachronous Rex]

Then why do people who are infertile marry each other?

As I said, men and women complement each other.

Marriage does not have everything to do with reproduction; although, that certainly is important.

Here's the thing. Marriage, if we're being completely objective about it, is a property arrangement between either men or families, depending on the society.

At some point we, as civilized people, decided to change the definition. Not just gay people, all of us. To be about love, and companionship, codependency, and, yes, family too. But not any one of these things, and not necessarily all of them either.

And this is what creates the problem, because, whereas using the previous definition, gay couples were obviously precluded, the current definition we all use seems to include them. Gay couples can do and be all of those things. They can even have children if they want, pretty soon they will be able to have children with each other if they want.

People who say that marriage is only between men and women, and that gays cannot be included, are reactionaries who are themselves trying to change the definition of marriage, so as to find some flimsy justification of excluding homosexuals. But they're doing far more damage to the institution then gays ever did, because applying their logic consistently creates terrifyingly sinister implications for many married couples, not just gay ones. As Individuality-ness just demonstrated.

[Hathradic States]

Complement each other how?

Then why do people who do not wish to have children ever get married?

1. I would say that men and women are the anatomical and psychological complements of one another.

2. I do not think fertile couples who intend never to have children ought to marry.

1. I could say something, but it would make both sides hate me. MOVING ON.

2. And miss out on the tax benefits? I'm not exactly a sterling progressing, and I think that is the single most retarded thing I've heard today. And I heard some retarded shit.

[Christian Democrats]

Is it best that homosexuals be forced to go against their natural desires? That seems pretty bad to me.

Except in rare circumstances, I do not believe that anyone should be forced to do anything; although, we certainly may use force to restrain people from committing certain acts.

Show a source that will demonstrate that it is best for all relationships to be purely heterosexual binary relationships.

I do not really need a source for you to understand that humanity would not be here without heterosexual relationships.

Heterosexual relationships are necessary, whereas we would be at no loss if nobody felt homosexual inclinations.

[Anachronous Rex]

Complement each other how?

Then why do people who do not wish to have children ever get married?

1. I would say that men and women are the anatomical and psychological complements of one another.

2. I do not think fertile couples who intend never to have children ought to marry.

That's very odd coming from a Christian. Have you read the Church fathers?

[Grave_n_idle]

1. I would say that men and women are the anatomical and psychological complements of one another.

Curious claim.

If men and women are the anatomical complements... why can the prostate only be directly stimulated by anal penetration?

[Individuality-ness]

1. [citation needed] Especially for the psychological part.

2. Why not?

Because he has this Medieval idea that marriage is solely for the purpose of having kids. Forget companionship or a couple's desire for other things. No. If you marry and don't have children, you're terrible.

It also shows that he has no true understanding of what marriage is about.

Why is it that the rest of us seem to understand?

No. It's time for him to wake up and see reality in a progressive, liberal, sex positive society.

Those two terms shouldn't be in the same sentence as progressive.

Why not?