Should homosexuals have the right to marry?

[Station 12]

Functionally, the marraige relationship is unique for the fact that it involves intercourse (penile/vaginal)

Because people aren't allowed to have extramarital sex.

[Ifreann]

Should siblings have the right to get married too? What if they love each other? I find it unlikely that anyone would respond to these questions with affirmation.

Hi there. I'm responding to your question with affirmation.

[Tech-gnosis]

Someone may have already put forth this argument( i didn't go all the post)but, I think that the union between a man and a women is the very definition of marriage meaning that any other union is not a marriage whether a state agrees or not. I believe that society is built by strong families and most the social problems in a society can be attributed to weak ones. By families I am referring to those built by procreation which i think is the real purpose of marriage. Marriage is about commitment and creating families. Though many married couples do not reproduce it does not change the purpose. I don't think this and issue of equality( in the U.S. at least) because the gay man and the straight man are protected by the same rights. They both can marry any women and inversely neither can marry a man. Rights are determined by humanity not sexuality. the argument is a pragmatic one, it is good for humanity and society to uphold heterosexual marriage.

Gay couples can reproduce through surrogacy and sperm donors. With further scientific progress it seems likely that eventually gay couples will be able to have children who are genetically related to both partners. There are already rats who have two genetically related mothers and no genetically related father. There's also adoption.

[Ifreann]

Someone may have already put forth this argument( i didn't go all the post)but, I think that the union between a man and a women is the very definition of marriage meaning that any other union is not a marriage whether a state agrees or not. I believe that society is built by strong families and most the social problems in a society can be attributed to weak ones. By families I am referring to those built by procreation which i think is the real purpose of marriage. Marriage is about commitment and creating families. Though many married couples do not reproduce it does not change the purpose. I don't think this and issue of equality( in the U.S. at least) because the gay man and the straight man are protected by the same rights. They both can marry any women and inversely neither can marry a man. Rights are determined by humanity not sexuality. the argument is a pragmatic one, it is good for humanity and society to uphold heterosexual marriage.

Gay couples can reproduce through surrogacy and sperm donors. With further scientific progress it seems likely that eventually gay couples will be able to have children who are genetically related to both partners. There are already rats who have two genetically related mothers and no genetically related father. There's also adoption.

That doesn't count! If there's a scientist involved, you can't have rights.

[Neu Heidelberg]

Again, I'd like to bring up that the focus of this debate is wrong.

The question is not what benefit same sex marriages would bring to society, because several same sex couples are already married for all intents and purposes (except the legal one).

The question should be what disadvantages it brings to society that legal recognition is withheld from their marriages. Or what advantage it brings to society to continue to do so.

also, see:

Gay and lesbian couples already have the right to get married. The issue is we don't always recognise that right.

Once you realise this is not a matter of granting a right, but of recognising one, the moral dimension of the question changes. No longer are we asking: "is a same sex relationship worthy enough of the title marriage?" Instead, we must ask ourselves: "am I worthy enough to judge a relationship other than my own?"

You must be pretty high on righteousness to believe you can judge love and commitment of a couple you have never met.

[EvilDarkMagicians]

A gay man has the right to marry a woman, just as a lesbian has the right to marry a man.

Yes, they have that right.
But what if they want the right to marry someone of the opposite sex?
Do you agree with that right?

You mean same sex... and no, I don't believe in that "right" one bit.

Why not?

There is no benefit to society.

But there's no downfall?
If it doesn't hurt people who don't have gay marriages, why does it matter if you allow them?

[Farnhamia]

Should siblings have the right to get married too? What if they love each other? I find it unlikely that anyone would respond to these questions with affirmation.

Often arguments in favor of gay marraige amount to little more than this, albeit substituting the word "gay" or "homosexual" in place of "sibling". That being said, if one is to produce a definition of marraige they would have to so with certain moral and functional perogatives in mind.

Functionally, the marraige relationship is unique for the fact that it involves intercourse (penile/vaginal), and the ability under normal circumstances to produce children. This function warrents government recognition because of its impact upon society. While it is not universally true that all heterosexual couples maintain this ability, it is universally true that no homosexual couple is physically capable preforming the act of intercourse, and naturally producing children. For this reason, homosexual relationships do not warrent government recognition.

Now, one might argue that based on this reasoning, certain heterosexual couples would also be barred from marraige on account of a physical abnormality that prevents child-bearing. However, these situations amount to the equivalent of physical handicap, and thus should not result in denied rights. By contrast, the universal inability of homosexual couples to preform intercourse is not based on physical handicap, but rather on the nature of intercourse being limited to a male-female relationship.

So no, homosexuals should not have the right to marry.

If human existence is simply about procreation - that is, I believe, the simplest statement of your proposition - why bother with marriage at all?

This is a perfect example of the specious reasoning the opponents of same-sex marriage always use. They declare their definition of marriage (procreation in this case, strong families in others, "the kids will suffer" in some cases) to be the only true definition, and the build their case accordingly. And here we also see the cooly rational approach, as opposed to the more rabid "Gays are immoral perverts" approach which is fashionable in certain quarters.

[Zeppy]

But there's no downfall?
If it doesn't hurt people who don't have gay marriages, why does it matter if you allow them?

High amounts of gay-dation may cause higher rate of cancer of the gay bone.

[Helertia]

Should siblings have the right to get married too? What if they love each other? I find it unlikely that anyone would respond to these questions with affirmation.

Oh, can we kill these slippery clope arguments already?

Incest: Not like gay marriage, genetic problems. Which means actual harm done by it, unlike gay marriage. Although I personally have no real problem with incestual couples, better not to make it mainstream, yes?

Pedophila: Not like gay marriage, consent. You should actually shouting at Daily Mail arguments that the age at which you can be tried as an adult, as thats to do with child consent

Bestialty:Not like gay marriage, consent. Animals can't currently give consent (in a way which we can understand) so unless you're suggesting gay people are less intelligent than animals....

[Parthenon]

A gay man has the right to marry a woman, just as a lesbian has the right to marry a man.

Yes, they have that right.
But what if they want the right to marry someone of the opposite sex?
Do you agree with that right?

You mean same sex... and no, I don't believe in that "right" one bit.

Why not?

There is no benefit to society.

But there's no downfall?
If it doesn't hurt people who don't have gay marriages, why does it matter if you allow them?

Aids gained momentum in the gay community.

[Phenia]

A gay man has the right to marry a woman, just as a lesbian has the right to marry a man.

Yes, they have that right.
But what if they want the right to marry someone of the opposite sex?
Do you agree with that right?

You mean same sex... and no, I don't believe in that "right" one bit.

Why not?

There is no benefit to society.

But there's no downfall?
If it doesn't hurt people who don't have gay marriages, why does it matter if you allow them?

Aids gained momentum in the gay community.

Complete horseshit. Perhaps if your arguments weren't always built on sheer fucking fiction they'd be taken more seriously.

[Helertia]

A gay man has the right to marry a woman, just as a lesbian has the right to marry a man.

Yes, they have that right.
But what if they want the right to marry someone of the opposite sex?
Do you agree with that right?

You mean same sex... and no, I don't believe in that "right" one bit.

Why not?

There is no benefit to society.

But there's no downfall?
If it doesn't hurt people who don't have gay marriages, why does it matter if you allow them?

Aids gained momentum in the gay community.

There should be a variant of Godwins law but for Aids, don't you think?

[Neu Heidelberg]

Aids gained momentum in the gay community.

Probably for lack of marriage (recognition).

[Ifreann]

A gay man has the right to marry a woman, just as a lesbian has the right to marry a man.

Yes, they have that right.
But what if they want the right to marry someone of the opposite sex?
Do you agree with that right?

You mean same sex... and no, I don't believe in that "right" one bit.

Why not?

There is no benefit to society.

But there's no downfall?
If it doesn't hurt people who don't have gay marriages, why does it matter if you allow them?

Aids gained momentum in the gay community.

Ergo, no marriage for gays! Makes perfect sense.

[Helertia]

Aids gained momentum in the gay community.

Probably for lack of marriage (recognition).

Actually, thats a really good point. Why didn't I think of that?

[Tech-gnosis]

Should siblings have the right to get married too? What if they love each other? I find it unlikely that anyone would respond to these questions with affirmation.

Incest is wrong because of the much higher rate of birth defects of children of family members and the inequities between parents and children during a child's development.

Functionally, the marraige relationship is unique for the fact that it involves intercourse (penile/vaginal), and the ability under normal circumstances to produce children.

Functionally no penile/vaginal intercourse has to occur in a heterosexual marriage.

This function warrents government recognition because of its impact upon society. While it is not universally true that all heterosexual couples maintain this ability, it is universally true that no homosexual couple is physically capable preforming the act of intercourse, and naturally producing children. For this reason, homosexual relationships do not warrent government recognition.

Now, one might argue that based on this reasoning, certain heterosexual couples would also be barred from marraige on account of a physical abnormality that prevents child-bearing. However, these situations amount to the equivalent of physical handicap, and thus should not result in denied rights. By contrast, the universal inability of homosexual couples to preform intercourse is not based on physical handicap, but rather on the nature of intercourse being limited to a male-female relationship.

I dont see how gay couples could be considered to have a different handicap than sterile straight couples, the inability to have to genetically related offspring.

[Self--Esteem]

Someone may have already put forth this argument( i didn't go all the post)but, I think that the union between a man and a women is the very definition of marriage meaning that any other union is not a marriage whether a state agrees or not. I believe that society is built by strong families and most the social problems in a society can be attributed to weak ones. By families I am referring to those built by procreation which i think is the real purpose of marriage. Marriage is about commitment and creating families. Though many married couples do not reproduce it does not change the purpose. I don't think this and issue of equality( in the U.S. at least) because the gay man and the straight man are protected by the same rights. They both can marry any women and inversely neither can marry a man. Rights are determined by humanity not sexuality. the argument is a pragmatic one, it is good for humanity and society to uphold heterosexual marriage.

Gay couples can reproduce through surrogacy and sperm donors. With further scientific progress it seems likely that eventually gay couples will be able to have children who are genetically related to both partners. There are already rats who have two genetically related mothers and no genetically related father. There's also adoption.

That doesn't count! If there's a scientist involved, you can't have rights.

What has science to do with rights?

They pay it, they can have it. A simple right.

[Ifreann]

Incest: Not like gay marriage, genetic problems.

.....what?

[Herolandia]

A gay man has the right to marry a woman, just as a lesbian has the right to marry a man.

Yes, they have that right.
But what if they want the right to marry someone of the opposite sex?
Do you agree with that right?

You mean same sex... and no, I don't believe in that "right" one bit.

Why not?

There is no benefit to society.

But there's no downfall?
If it doesn't hurt people who don't have gay marriages, why does it matter if you allow them?

Aids gained momentum in the gay community.

FFS I'll say it again

Aids appeared as a result a man man shagging a Monkey, may I suggest a cull since they are immoral?

[Farnhamia]

A gay man has the right to marry a woman, just as a lesbian has the right to marry a man.

Yes, they have that right.
But what if they want the right to marry someone of the opposite sex?
Do you agree with that right?

You mean same sex... and no, I don't believe in that "right" one bit.

Why not?

There is no benefit to society.

But there's no downfall?
If it doesn't hurt people who don't have gay marriages, why does it matter if you allow them?

Aids gained momentum in the gay community.

Ergo, no marriage for gays! Makes perfect sense.

In which case we need a crusade to prevent Africans from getting married, since Africa is, I believe where you find the greatest number of AIDS cases. I hadn't realized that gays had spent so much time sowing their wild oats in that continent 40 years ago.

[Farnhamia]

Someone may have already put forth this argument( i didn't go all the post)but, I think that the union between a man and a women is the very definition of marriage meaning that any other union is not a marriage whether a state agrees or not. I believe that society is built by strong families and most the social problems in a society can be attributed to weak ones. By families I am referring to those built by procreation which i think is the real purpose of marriage. Marriage is about commitment and creating families. Though many married couples do not reproduce it does not change the purpose. I don't think this and issue of equality( in the U.S. at least) because the gay man and the straight man are protected by the same rights. They both can marry any women and inversely neither can marry a man. Rights are determined by humanity not sexuality. the argument is a pragmatic one, it is good for humanity and society to uphold heterosexual marriage.

Gay couples can reproduce through surrogacy and sperm donors. With further scientific progress it seems likely that eventually gay couples will be able to have children who are genetically related to both partners. There are already rats who have two genetically related mothers and no genetically related father. There's also adoption.

That doesn't count! If there's a scientist involved, you can't have rights.

What has science to do with rights?

They pay it, they can have it. A simple right.

No, no, if you have to go to a scientist or doctor in order to have children, you are obviously deficient and must be denied the ability to poluute the sacred institution of marriage with your atheistic secular pratices.

[Helertia]

Incest: Not like gay marriage, genetic problems.

.....what?

Incestual couples produce children who are more likely to have genetic disorders is what I was trying to say, I think. Either that or when the genes of two siblings mingle they embark on a FIGHT TO THE DEAT

[Tech-gnosis]

In which case we need a crusade to prevent Africans from getting married, since Africa is, I believe where you find the greatest number of AIDS cases. I hadn't realized that gays had spent so much time sowing their wild oats in that continent 40 years ago.

Don't forget all those children who are born with AIDS. Heterosexual sex gives the AIDS to the little children.

[Parthenon]

In the USA, the UK, and a number of other European countries, HIV and AIDS have affected young gay men more than any other group of people. In the UK and USA especially, the percentage of young gay men who have been infected with HIV and the percentage with AIDS is much higher than other groups such as heterosexual people or children.

In the USA, it is estimated that nearly 255,000 men who have sex with men were living with HIV/AIDS in 2007, and nearly 5,400 had died. Around 48% of all people diagnosed with AIDS in America in 2007 were probably exposed to HIV through male-to-male sexual contact. In the UK, by the end of June 2009, around 45,947 diagnoses of HIV had been in men who had probably become infected through sex with another man. 53% of these men were aged below 35.

There are also other parts of the world where men who have sex with men, many of whom do not identify themselves as gay, are affected by HIV. For example, the primary HIV transmission route in Latin America is sex between men. In Brazil, men who have sex with men accounted for 40% of all AIDS diagnoses among males between 2000 and 2005. In some cities in Colombia, estimates of HIV prevalence among men who have sex with men range from 10% to 25%.


Yep, 48% of the American aids problem as a group that is only 9% of the population...

[EvilDarkMagicians]

A gay man has the right to marry a woman, just as a lesbian has the right to marry a man.

Yes, they have that right.
But what if they want the right to marry someone of the opposite sex?
Do you agree with that right?

You mean same sex... and no, I don't believe in that "right" one bit.

Why not?

There is no benefit to society.

But there's no downfall?
If it doesn't hurt people who don't have gay marriages, why does it matter if you allow them?

Aids gained momentum in the gay community.

Couldn't gay marriage actually help? (Encouraging gays to settle down).