Same-Sex Marriage: Point of View

[Christian Democrats]

It is getting rather late in the US, so I'll be signing off soon.

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

Unless someone suffers from a genetic sexual disorder, I think you'll acknowledge that men and women have different outlooks due to hormonal differences and differences in brain structure.

And miss out on the tax benefits?

Why not reform tax laws instead of marriage laws?

[Hathradic States]

Why not reform tax laws instead of marriage laws?

Because that would be a bitch.

[Individuality-ness]

It is getting rather late in the US, so I'll be signing off soon.

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

Unless someone suffers from a genetic sexual disorder, I think you'll acknowledge that men and women have different outlooks due to hormonal differences and differences in brain structure.

Outlook on what? Are you referring to gender roles? Then that's because society imposes it, not because biology makes it so.

Hell, no two men think the same, nor do two women. So that's bullocks.

[Christian Democrats]

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.

Even if this is so, heterosexuals and homosexuals cannot express their feelings for each other in the same ways.

[Anachronous Rex]

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.

So nobody ought to do anything that would doom the species if everybody did it?

That's a remarkably stupid thing to say. For one thing, you've just denounced Jesus, as clearly the human race would die off if everyone was voluntarily martyred.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

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?

Because we're grounded in reality and we understand that marriage (that union between 2 people that love each other) is not about procreation. It's about more than that. A couple that decides not to procreate is doing nothing wrong. We all have free will, and if Christianity is to be believed, that free will is god-given.

[Essos]

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

Ok. That is a source. Now, here's the thing. Why do prostitutes spread HIV? Is it because their job is a sinful dirty gross one, or is it because they have no support structure? Is it because they don't have access to screenings? Is it because they get it from other sources than sex(needle sharing), and then transmit it to others? Will decriminalizing and regulating prostitution serve to reduce the rate of drug use among prostitutes, negating that portion of your argument? Will those same steps reduce the HIV rate? Is their data for Nevada compared to the rest of the US?

More importantly, HIV, while bad, is only one STD, and it can be, as I have noted previously, transmitted by means other than sex. It does not necessarily follow that all prostitutes get HIV via sex, though they likely do transmit it that way, if they do not use protection.

Your argument is still not sufficient evidence to say that prostitution is INHERENTLY wrong, and that it ought to be criminalized.

[Anachronous Rex]

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.

Even if this is so, heterosexuals and homosexuals cannot express their feelings for each other in the same ways.

How not?

[Christian Democrats]

Why not reform tax laws instead of marriage laws?

Because that would be a bitch.

Actually, tax laws are changed all the time.

It is getting rather late in the US, so I'll be signing off soon.


Unless someone suffers from a genetic sexual disorder, I think you'll acknowledge that men and women have different outlooks due to hormonal differences and differences in brain structure.

Outlook on what? Are you referring to gender roles? Then that's because society imposes it, not because biology makes it so.

Hell, no two men think the same, nor do two women. So that's bullocks.

I am not talking about gender roles. I wish to discuss sexual differences.

[Essos]

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.

Restrain people from doing certain acts=forced to do other acts. Way to say the same thing with different words. Should gays not be permitted to have sex or marry, because it offends your idea of religion?

You do need to show that the BEST POSSIBLE RELATIONSHIP is a binary heterosexual one. Not that it is a necessary, but that all other relationships are inferior to it for all people in all cases. Source it, or shut your flap.

[Zweite Alaje]

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.

Even if this is so, heterosexuals and homosexuals cannot express their feelings for each other in the same ways.

Buttsecks, my friend, buttsecks works wonders.

But seriously, how can you say that? I know for a fact homosexuals have the same expressions of love heteros do.

[Hathradic States]

Because that would be a bitch.

Actually, tax laws are changed all the time.

Yes, but that would require rewriting part of the tax code. It would take an act of Congress to do that.

[Grenartia]

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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. Second, if marriage had nothing to do with reproduction, then we would allow individuals to marry siblings, cousins, uncles, aunts, children, parents, and grandparents. 5. Also, we probably would abolish the marriage age.

1. How do you know they can't? Now I know you have no clue what you're talking about.

2. Complimentarianism is inherently sexist because its nothing more than a form of 'separate, but equal'.

3. Still separate but equal.

4. No, not inherently. After all, we let knowingly infertile people and the elderly get married.

5. No, we wouldn't do that at all because it would allow for pedophilia (keep in mind here that sexual intercourse does not mean reproduction).

Then why do people who are infertile marry each other?

As I said, men and women complement each other.

Doesn't answer the question.

Complement each other how?

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

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

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

6. Again, you have no scientific source to back this bullshit up.

7. Again, this position is anti-freedom, with no viable justification.

It is getting rather late in the US, so I'll be signing off soon.

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

Unless someone suffers from a genetic sexual disorder, I think you'll acknowledge that men and women have different outlooks due to hormonal differences and differences in brain structure.

And miss out on the tax benefits?

Why not reform tax laws instead of marriage laws?

Of course, it (the differences in genders) couldn't possibly be due to society. It HAS to be rooted in biology.

Also, what about the non-monetary benefits of marriage? Like hospital visitation, or the ability to make funeral arrangements and medical decisions?

[Flagsia]

Homosexual is not natural .

[Great Nepal]

Homosexual is not natural .

Your laptop isn't natural. Get off it.

[Atnae]

Buttsecks, my friend, buttsecks works wonders.

But seriously, how can you say that? I know for a fact homosexuals have the same expressions of love heteros do.

This is all part of how butthurt Christians get when you mention that not everybody follows their religious dogma and then find it hard to believe that people who don't follow their dogma are human.

[Individuality-ness]

Outlook on what? Are you referring to gender roles? Then that's because society imposes it, not because biology makes it so.

Hell, no two men think the same, nor do two women. So that's bullocks.

I am not talking about gender roles. I wish to discuss sexual differences.

Then explain what you mean and source that bullshit.

[Christian Democrats]

So nobody ought to do anything that would doom the species if everybody did it?

That's a remarkably stupid thing to say. For one thing, you've just denounced Jesus, as clearly the human race would die off if everyone was voluntarily martyred.

1. I am not saying that at all. I am just saying that it has been necessary for at least some people to be heterosexual. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not necessary.

2. Being martyred is not something that someone does; it is something that happens to someone.

Even if this is so, heterosexuals and homosexuals cannot express their feelings for each other in the same ways.

How not?

To quote Harvey Milk, "God knows we keep trying." Even gays and lesbians acknowledge that they cannot express their feelings for each other in the same way that heterosexual couples can.

[Flagsia]

Homosexual is not natural .

Your laptop isn't natural. Get off it.

What is wrong with you , I am just giving my opinion in this matter.

[Individuality-ness]

How not?

To quote Harvey Milk, "God knows we keep trying." Even gays and lesbians acknowledge that they cannot express their feelings for each other in the same way that heterosexual couples can.

Now is that because biology, or is that because society has deemed them to be second-class citizens where people look at you gross if you're seen holding hands with your significant other in public, let alone kiss, or *gasp!* want to get married and have benefits under the law that come with marriage.

[Anachronous Rex]

So nobody ought to do anything that would doom the species if everybody did it?

That's a remarkably stupid thing to say. For one thing, you've just denounced Jesus, as clearly the human race would die off if everyone was voluntarily martyred.

1. I am not saying that at all. I am just saying that it has been necessary for at least some people to be heterosexual. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not necessary.

Well then get off it. Loads of things are not necessary. We let people do them anyway.

2. Being martyred is not something that someone does; it is something that happens to someone.

Oh, so it's just like being homosexual then?

How not?

To quote Harvey Milk, "God knows we keep trying." Even gays and lesbians acknowledge that they cannot express their feelings for each other in the same way that heterosexual couples can.

You're going to have to provide an actual example if you expect to be taken even remotely seriously. Right now, you seem desperate and silly.

[Atnae]

What is wrong with you , I am just giving my opinion in this matter.

He was using a straw man argument against you. While in disagreement with his argument, I cannot express how much I disagree with your statement.

[Christian Democrats]

Restrain people from doing certain acts=forced to do other acts. Way to say the same thing with different words. Should gays not be permitted to have sex or marry, because it offends your idea of religion?

I do not believe that homosexuals should be restrained from "marrying." Homosexuals are not being compelled to do or not to do anything. On the other hand, they wish to compel society to do something for them: to recognize their relationships.

[Zweite Alaje]

Buttsecks, my friend, buttsecks works wonders.

But seriously, how can you say that? I know for a fact homosexuals have the same expressions of love heteros do.

This is all part of how butthurt Christians get when you mention that not everybody follows their religious dogma and then find it hard to believe that people who don't follow their dogma are human.

Indeed. Fundie Christians and the crusty old book of theirs. God cares about deeds not ones nature.

[Individuality-ness]

Restrain people from doing certain acts=forced to do other acts. Way to say the same thing with different words. Should gays not be permitted to have sex or marry, because it offends your idea of religion?

I do not believe that homosexuals should be restrained from "marrying." Homosexuals are not being compelled to do or not to do anything. On the other hand, they wish to compel society to do something for them: to recognize their relationships.

It's like how interracial couples wish to compel society to recognize their relationships as equally valid!