Same-Sex Marriage: Point of View

[Imperiatom]

Source on every single point, please?

Even if he manages to prove that homosexual marriages are worse for kids, I really don't see why it matters. I mean, I'm sure you could find another group that doesn't raise kids well. Convicted felons, perhaps. Does that mean convicted felons should be prevented from marrying?

Also, since when are marriages exclusively about kids?

Notice how most of them don't stick around to have a debate.

It's probably because all of their arguments boil down to fallacies, personal grudges, illogical ramblings or religious bias.

The reason that it is worse for kids is because of people like him saying it is wrong and worse, if everyone accepted it on the same level as say people having different colored eyes then it would be no different other than the usual to do with being adopted.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

According to several studies, children raised by two gay parents seem to turn out just fine.

[New Chalcedon]

More and more countries seem to be legalising gay marriage these days. So many people seem to think that its a sign of a more advanced, enlightened society but really, I think it just shows that marriage doesn't mean the same to a lot of people as it used to. I wouldn't be surprised if marriage laws ended up becoming even more lax in the future.

Marriage has never meant the same thing to any one generation as it has to previous or following ones. More on this later, as I see that you're interested in expounding on your own idea of "what marriage is".

Now as some of you might know, I'm a Catholic, and you might be thinking that I have no reasons to oppose gay marriage other than “God disapproves of this”. While its true that homosexual relationships are against the laws of God (which cannot be changed),

Your interpretation of them, perhaps - which is no sound basis upon which to determine the laws of the land. Not to mention being a Constitutionally-prohibited method of lawmaking, at least in the USA.

there is also the question of the nature and purpose of marriage.

Marriage as a social and political institution has existed for around 4000 years, and has generally been recognised as the institution which united a man and a woman to each other and any children born from their union.

Or a man and his virginal rape victim. Or a man and his multiple wives. Or a woman and her multiple husbands (much less common). Or multiple partners of both genders (also uncommon). Or a man and his chattel. Or any of many other arrangements.

It's a whole lot more complex than you may understand, you know. And your own narrow-minded view of marriage is far from universal.

Why has heterosexual marriage exclusively enjoyed such legal and social status? Is it because these ancient societies were primitive and bigoted? Hardly. If anything those societies were even more tolerant of alternative arrangements than today.

[Citation needed]

Examples include hooking up with temple prostitutes, same-sex relationships, cohabiting and being given certain services by slaves.

Got any sources of same-sex relationships being openly tolerated in historical societies?

The reason that heterosexual marriage is so important is to do with the benefits it gives that are necessary for society:

This ought to be good.

1. Marriage unites children to their mother and father. While about 30% of cohabiting couples give up on their children, this is very rare for married couples.

Citation needed.

Also, only children born in a marriage have a legal right to know who their mother and father are and to be raised by them. Gay marriage undermines this legal right and therefore; damages the dignity of the child.

Citation fucking needed.

2. Children born to a married mother and father generally do better on all academic, social, psychological, spiritual, and interpersonal measures. Again, gay marriage undermines this fact and damages the dignity of the child.

Citation needed.

3. Married women are more financially and socially secure than women in any other relationship type (including lesbian relationships). This even includes university-educated women. No other relationship-type protects the financial and social security of women like marriage.

Citation needed.

4. As well as the fact that married men are far more willing to claim and raise their own children, they are far less likely to commit violent crime than unmarried men. According to the US Department of Justice, 65% of violent crimes against women are committed by unmarried men. In comparison, only 9% of married men have committed a violent crime against a woman.Look at any crime statistics and you will notice similar patterns.

Source please.

5. Married couples generally have more children than unmarried couples. While some of you might make points about overpopulation, that is hardly an issue here in the west. In fact de-population is a serious issue.In Europe, the average couple has 1.5 children, not even enough to replace the current generation.

Ever heard of this thing called "immigration"? I know that voluntary cross-cultural migration is only about 200 years old as a concept, so it might not have crossed your mental radar horizon yet.

As I have pointed out, heterosexual marriage benefits society in a number of ways.

No, you've made a number of very questionable assertions and alleged various very specific statistics to be true without once providing a source.

Homosexual marriage does not give any of these benefits and in fact, undermines them. For example, gay marriage makes it discriminatory to say that a child has a right to a mother and father.

No, it doesn't. And before you go on a jag, I'll explain. There is nothing wrong - by anyone's standard - in saying that a child has a mother and a father. Biologically, this must be true for all children.

However, to say that the child must be raised by their mother and their father is a different story. Besides neglecting to take into account any of the reasons why said parents may no longer be together, it also completely discounts the nature of the individuals involved. Not all persons are equally fit to be parents, and I can name, from personal experience, at least two cases where the child(ren) would have been better off had the absconding parent left sooner. One of them involves me - had my (abusive, neglectful) mother simply left my life when I was 4, I'd have been much better off, since I'd have lived with my (imperfect but caring) father. Instead, I had to live through two of her other partners, one of whom she married - and was almost as bad as she.

While your statements is not discriminatory per se, it is remarkably ignorant. On second thought, perhaps not so remarkably, given the rest of your post.

While gay couples can have children through adoption or assisted reproduction, they cannot provide both parents.

And? Neither can many couples of whom one or both are infertile. Should they not be permitted to access assisted reproduction or adoption? Or is it OK because they have different sets of gonads?

But if homosexual families are recognised as equal to heterosexual families, then it denies a child's right to a mother and father, and even the need for a mother and father, despite all available data saying otherwise. Society would be required to tell children that their natural longing for two opposite sex parents is disordered.

Whatever you're smoking to have come to that conclusion, may I have some? It's gotta be good stuff.

In a number of ways, homosexual marriage also undermines heterosexual marriage. It asks society to give the same benefits it gives to heterosexual marriage, to a type of relationship which does not give the same benefits in return.

Yawn.

This makes it harder to justify not giving these benefits to other relationship types e.g. cohabiting couples.

As a general rule, de facto (i.e., "cohabiting") couples already get most or all of the legal benefits of marriage for the asking. At least if they're straight. Unless you're planning to turn back the clock (a futile endeavour), your argument is fallacious.

This could undermine marriage rates for heterosexuals as marriage requires more effort and commitment than other types of relationships. If these relationships are promoted as equivalent to marriage, then marriage becomes less attractive, especially among the poor and those without higher education - the very people who benefit most from marriage.

......what? Seriously, what?

Now, just one note: If you even once cite a source by the Family Research Council, or any other such hate-group "think tank" in response to my requests for citations and sources, then I'm going to tear your argument a new one, and well shall it deserve it. Just thought I'd make that clear in advance.

[New Chalcedon]

According to several studies, children raised by two gay parents seem to turn out just fine.

Shhh! Don't disturb the bigots with facts - it's not very polite, now is it?

Notice how most of them don't stick around to have a debate.

It's probably because all of their arguments boil down to fallacies, personal grudges, illogical ramblings or religious bias.

To be fair, at least Place of Interest is trying to present a public-interest rationale for denying same-sex marriage. I don't agree with his argument, but it's several steps up from being howling bigotry.

[Liriena]

More and more countries seem to be legalising gay marriage these days. So many people seem to think that its a sign of a more advanced, enlightened society but really, I think it just shows that marriage doesn't mean the same to a lot of people as it used to. I wouldn't be surprised if marriage laws ended up becoming even more lax in the future.

Now as some of you might know, I'm a Catholic, and you might be thinking that I have no reasons to oppose gay marriage other than “God disapproves of this”. While its true that homosexual relationships are against the laws of God (which cannot be changed), there is also the question of the nature and purpose of marriage.

Marriage as a social and political institution has existed for around 4000 years, and has generally been recognised as the institution which united a man and a woman to each other and any children born from their union. Why has heterosexual marriage exclusively enjoyed such legal and social status? Is it because these ancient societies were primitive and bigoted? Hardly. If anything those societies were even more tolerant of alternative arrangements than today. Examples include hooking up with temple prostitutes, same-sex relationships, cohabiting and being given certain services by slaves. The reason that heterosexual marriage is so important is to do with the benefits it gives that are necessary for society:

1. Marriage unites children to their mother and father. While about 30% of cohabiting couples give up on their children, this is very rare for married couples. Also, only children born in a marriage have a legal right to know who their mother and father are and to be raised by them. Gay marriage undermines this legal right and therefore; damages the dignity of the child.

2. Children born to a married mother and father generally do better on all academic, social, psychological, spiritual, and interpersonal measures. Again, gay marriage undermines this fact and damages the dignity of the child.

3. Married women are more financially and socially secure than women in any other relationship type (including lesbian relationships). This even includes university-educated women. No other relationship-type protects the financial and social security of women like marriage.

4. As well as the fact that married men are far more willing to claim and raise their own children, they are far less likely to commit violent crime than unmarried men. According to the US Department of Justice, 65% of violent crimes against women are committed by unmarried men. In comparison, only 9% of married men have committed a violent crime against a woman.Look at any crime statistics and you will notice similar patterns.

5. Married couples generally have more children than unmarried couples. While some of you might make points about overpopulation, that is hardly an issue here in the west. In fact de-population is a serious issue.In Europe, the average couple has 1.5 children, not even enough to replace the current generation.

As I have pointed out, heterosexual marriage benefits society in a number of ways. Homosexual marriage does not give any of these benefits and in fact, undermines them. For example, gay marriage makes it discriminatory to say that a child has a right to a mother and father. While gay couples can have children through adoption or assisted reproduction, they cannot provide both parents. But if homosexual families are recognised as equal to heterosexual families, then it denies a child's right to a mother and father, and even the need for a mother and father, despite all available data saying otherwise. Society would be required to tell children that their natural longing for two opposite sex parents is disordered.

In a number of ways, homosexual marriage also undermines heterosexual marriage. It asks society to give the same benefits it gives to heterosexual marriage, to a type of relationship which does not give the same benefits in return. This makes it harder to justify not giving these benefits to other relationship types e.g. cohabiting couples. This could undermine marriage rates for heterosexuals as marriage requires more effort and commitment than other types of relationships. If these relationships are promoted as equivalent to marriage, then marriage becomes less attractive, especially among the poor and those without higher education - the very people who benefit most from marriage.

1) This argument is one of the most hilarious non sequiturs I've read in a long time.

2) This statement of yours is not only a non sequitur, it's also an unrealistic statement, and lacks a credible source proving that same-sex couples fare any worse than your idealized opposite-sex couples. Studies so far agree that, on average, children raised by same-sex couples fare just as well as, if not better than, children raised by opposite-sex couples.

3) You need a source to justify that generalization, you know? I won't take that sort of bullshit seriously just because you say so.

4) You just made a very compelling argument...for the legalization of same-sex marriage. Not to mention I fail to see how legalizing same-sex marriage would hinder this benefit you speak of.

5) I'd like to see you prove that legalizing same-sex marriage directly leads to a drop in birth rates. Gay people are not going to start having sex with people of the opposite gender and create more babies if you ban same-sex marriage. And if you're trying to argue some sort of pseudo-psychological bullshit about how allowing gay couples to marry will make heterosexuals no longer want to have children, you better have some actual proof to back that unbelievably absurd statement.

You have utterly failed at proving any negative effects same-sex marriage may have on opposite-sex couples and their children. All you have are non sequiturs, strawmen, junk science, vacuous slogans and your own prejudice.

Your ignorant post has offended me more than any "stone the gays" rant I've ever read. It has made me feel more dehumanized and vilified than any "gays are pedophiles/zoophiles/necrophiles/nazis" smear I've had to put up with, and it brings me despair to know that opinions as deluded and excruciatingly disingenuous as yours are actually considered valid by such a large segment of the human population. At the very least, genocidal freaks are decent enough to not claim to know more about social science than you do. But you had the balls to accuse me and millions of LGBT people, who just want our relationships and our children to be protected by the law just as much as yours, of being a hazard for marriage and children, using insanely idiotic logic and wishiful thinking and not even trying to back them up with anything even remotely close to real evidence.

No emoticon can possibly express my exasperation.

[Imperiatom]

According to several studies, children raised by two gay parents seem to turn out just fine.

Shhh! Don't disturb the bigots with facts - it's not very polite, now is it?

It's probably because all of their arguments boil down to fallacies, personal grudges, illogical ramblings or religious bias.

To be fair, at least Place of Interest is trying to present a public-interest rationale for denying same-sex marriage. I don't agree with his argument, but it's several steps up from being howling bigotry.

Marriage is just a idea held by society all religions and societies have had marriages according to their customs for thousands of years. If we as a society decide it is ok for same sex marriage then that's what we should do. Christianity has just hijack something that is far older than their religion and try and twist it to their aims. If i was the PM i would forget about forcing religions to do this as that just gives them notoriety but to have a modern marriage defined as a civil marriage that take place wherever a couple wants. one that is presided over by a government no religious official and is a celebration of love between two people.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

According to several studies, children raised by two gay parents seem to turn out just fine.

Shhh! Don't disturb the bigots with facts - it's not very polite, now is it?

Not only that, they tend to run off like vampires at sunrise. I shouldn't chase them off before everyone gets a chance to play. My bad.

[Volnotova]

Sorry if I missed them. Would you be so kind as to re-post them?

Not today, sorry. But don´t worry, I got more. Besides, being one of the few anti-same sex "marriage" guy here fills me with an accomplished sense of elite, moral legitimacy.

Your smugness makes me gag.

[Twilliamson]

i see no reason for same sex marrige to be illegal. The people of the christan chrurch has to understand that they do not own marrige and they can not say who can and cannot get married.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

Not today, sorry. But don´t worry, I got more. Besides, being one of the few anti-same sex "marriage" guy here fills me with an accomplished sense of elite, moral legitimacy.

Your smugness makes me gag.

I'm not even going to make the joke I could make about that.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Your smugness makes me gag.

I'm not even going to make the joke I could make about that.

My guess is that it crossed everyone's mind already.

[Volnotova]

Your smugness makes me gag.

I'm not even going to make the joke I could make about that.

Don't worry, I felt that coming.

...

Your ignorant post has offended me more than any "stone the gays" rant I've ever read. It has made me feel more dehumanized and vilified than any "gays are pedophiles/zoophiles/necrophiles/nazis" smear I've had to put up with, and it brings me despair to know that opinions as deluded and excruciatingly disingenuous as yours are actually considered valid by such a large segment of the human population. At the very least, genocidal freaks are decent enough to not claim to know more about social science than you do. But you had the balls to accuse me and millions of LGBT people, who just want our relationships and our children to be protected by the law just as much as yours, of being a hazard for marriage and children, using insanely idiotic logic and wishiful thinking and not even trying to back them up with anything even remotely close to real evidence.

No emoticon can possibly express my exasperation.

This.

[Silent Majority]

Except marriage is a state institution not a religious one.


/thread

[Desperate Measures]

Except marriage is a state institution not a religious one.


/thread

If it were possible to end the thread with truth and facts, end thread would have happened on page one.

[Urmanian]

Your ignorant post has offended me more than any "stone the gays" rant I've ever read. It has made me feel more dehumanized and vilified than any "gays are pedophiles/zoophiles/necrophiles/nazis" smear I've had to put up with, and it brings me despair to know that opinions as deluded and excruciatingly disingenuous as yours are actually considered valid by such a large segment of the human population. At the very least, genocidal freaks are decent enough to not claim to know more about social science than you do. But you had the balls to accuse me and millions of LGBT people, who just want our relationships and our children to be protected by the law just as much as yours, of being a hazard for marriage and children, using insanely idiotic logic and wishiful thinking and not even trying to back them up with anything even remotely close to real evidence.

No emoticon can possibly express my exasperation.

Welp, that's what I just wanted to say but failed to find the words; I agree fully. It's one thing when a squealing bigot slobbers all over your face screaming about divine retribution and Sodom and Gomorrah but is actually so detached from reality it's really amusing and just sad in a way, and really fairly harmless and easy to disregard, but when someone coldly picks your personal life apart and tries, using disingenuous logic, wishful thinking and a dash of cherry-picked factoids and hate-filled pseudoscience, to explain to you that your relationship is harmful, your feelings are irrelevant and you must not be allowed to find happiness and build a loving family with the same legal protections that everyone else enjoys because you are a danger to the greater society, it just reeks of other vile, dehumanizing ethnical and religious propaganda humanity has manufactured over the centuries, and is incredibly evil and insidious. It just makes me feel a little better, to think that a similar tirade about the harms of interracial marriage would be taken seriously by a no small percentage of developed mankind a hundred years ago, but now it would be just laughed at and utterly disregarded by most; that, I hope, will be the fate of such homophobic hate-filled hogwash in not-so-distant future.

[Alimprad]

I lose absolutely fuck-all if they can't marry each other. Not a slice.

One could argue that if you live in a society where certain people are denied certain rights, then what you potentially lose is liberty.

yes, and ive got an easy way around that, dont give one about liberty.
anyway, i think its a stupid idea, by forcing them they would have to pay, but if they cant afford to then what? the honest tax payer has to fork out to make a gay in to a girl? dont no about u but i wouldnt vote for that goverment.
ive got an easy solution, shoot em all.

[Essos]

One could argue that if you live in a society where certain people are denied certain rights, then what you potentially lose is liberty.

yes, and ive got an easy way around that, dont give one about liberty.
anyway, i think its a stupid idea, by forcing them they would have to pay, but if they cant afford to then what? the honest tax payer has to fork out to make a gay in to a girl? dont no about u but i wouldnt vote for that goverment.
ive got an easy solution, shoot em all.

Firstly, I might suggest that a rudimentary knowledge of the English language,a nd how it should be written would be a useful skill for you to develop.

To address your other points, I have a counter proposal. Those who cannot show adequate literacy shall not be permitted to marry, as it would be bad for their children to be raised by a person lacking such basic skills. Furthermore, all those espousing negative opinions concerning the liberty of others shall be incarcerated, as dangers to the general welfare. Thirdly, those wishing, indicating, threatening or proposing harm on classes of people shall be deemed to be at all times attempting to do real harm to the persons of said class, and members of said class may at their discretion defend themselves as they see necessary, and to whatever extent is required, against the hostile actions and intentions of said persons.

Or is only ok when your only life and liberty aren't threatened?

[Heltonia]

homophilia is some sort of birth defect or mental illness anyways.
U shouldnt give these people rights, u should give them a CURE. CURE them and the problem goes away.

[Essos]

homophilia is some sort of birth defect or mental illness anyways.
U shouldnt give these people rights, u should give them a CURE. CURE them and the problem goes away.

There are no words to how ignorant this opinion is. No words in English, or any other language I speak. You are wrong in every particular of your thoughts, ideas, opinons, and statements. Your typing is bad and you should feel bad.

[Transhuman Proteus]

homophilia is some sort of birth defect or mental illness anyways.
U shouldnt give these people rights, u should give them a CURE. CURE them and the problem goes away.

Every authoritative psychological and scientific body disagrees with you, so it seems you are wrong. Incorrect. Mistaken. Not in the realms of reality.

[Heltonia]

homophilia is some sort of birth defect or mental illness anyways.
U shouldnt give these people rights, u should give them a CURE. CURE them and the problem goes away.

Every authoritative psychological and scientific body disagrees with you, so it seems you are wrong. Incorrect. Mistaken. Not in the realms of reality.

So what you're saying is the bible is wrong to discriminate against these people?

[Transhuman Proteus]

Every authoritative psychological and scientific body disagrees with you, so it seems you are wrong. Incorrect. Mistaken. Not in the realms of reality.

So what you're saying is the bible is wrong to discriminate against these people?

The Bible is wrong about a lot of things, discrimination based upon Biblical understandings or misunderstandings is also wrong.

[Essos]

Every authoritative psychological and scientific body disagrees with you, so it seems you are wrong. Incorrect. Mistaken. Not in the realms of reality.

So what you're saying is the bible is wrong to discriminate against these people?

Are you Christian? If so, please quote to me chapter and verse where Jesus says that it homosexuals are Bad People(TM).

[Heltonia]

So what you're saying is the bible is wrong to discriminate against these people?

The Bible is wrong about a lot of things, discrimination based upon Biblical understandings or misunderstandings is also wrong.

So what about the beastiality and pedophilia? Are you saying they're normal too?

[Heltonia]

So what you're saying is the bible is wrong to discriminate against these people?

Are you Christian? If so, please quote to me chapter and verse where Jesus says that it homosexuals are Bad People(TM).

Lev 18:22-23 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Lev 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death." 1 Cor 6:9 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals" 1 Tim 1:9-10 "realizing the fact that (civil) law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers" Rom 1:26-27 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.