Should homosexuals have the right to marry?

[Nobel Hobos]

anything I say about the US isn't necessarily true, I don't live there how can I know for sure? It's just what I've gathered from years of watching "The Daily Show" and lurking Fox news.

Hehe. Down in Австралийский Советских Социалистических Республик (previously known as Australia) we get the Daily Show and the Colbert Report on publicly-funded free-to-air digital television. Without ads, of course.

They're both pretty funny. I like The Chaser's War on Everything better tho. Tax money well spent!

[Satyrstone]

I have an idea, you should wait and find out.

Gays SHOULD NOT get to marry.

Your reason?

They in the state of "marriage" or as was said before, The "benefit ritual" does not benefit the state. Holding up a lawful and just state is a supreme end. The United States, and the various states are lawful and it is better they are benefited than destroyed. Homosexual "benefit rituals" do not give returns to the socity that forms the state.

The people do not exist to serve the state, the state exists to serve the people.

You are correct the social contract formed by the people bouys up the state, However in the service of themselves the people bend the state to it's will. In a great majority of cases this is not only acceptable but benefical to the state, and thereby the people. However in this case giving benefits to a union incapable of giving to the socity in a manner that the other union does namly children. this hurts the state. Heterosexual couples who do not have children hurt the state. Older couples and steral couples who cannot have children hurt the state by their union. This thereby hurts the socity. This gives aid to nothing else but failure of the state. It is not however a sole factor in a failure of a state. However it should be observed that, it is beneficial to have a state. as Thomas Hobbs noted The state of Nature is Violent and without morals. Keeping the state is preferable to a natural state.

The only possible exception to this would be adoption. and not every marrige is capable of supporting fosterd children or adopting a child

Having a child "hurts the state" in education costs.

[Satyrstone]

Heterosexual couples who do not have children hurt the state. Older couples and steral couples who cannot have children hurt the state by their union. This thereby hurts the socity.

How? Be specific.

how many benefits do states give a married couple? it was said consider it a vested intrest of the state that these couples produce children capable of continuing to give to the society or to the state. Tax deductions, is but one example. all you'd have to do is google certain state laws and find out what they give to married copules.

And trust me there are a lot of them

Where does it say in any law that marriage benefits exist to encourage childbirth? Just wondering.

[Czardas]

Ok well you used the same word "chauvanist" and you laughably spelled it incorrectly again. Also you know how chauvinist is mostly used I assume, and seeing as this discussion is on gays you would have to be utterly foolish to think someone wouldn't misconstrue it. Oh and uh learn spelling, you pompous douchebag.

Secondly, I was talking about governmental marriage. Duh. The government did that to increase child-birthing. But now let's actually examine your sentence: "I in no way advocated governmental expansion I simply pointed out that your idea of what religious marriage entails as its purposes is not sufficient to fully explain the definition: or to put it more aptly, your definiens do not fully encompass your definiendum." First of all: This is no place to toot your own horn. Get off your high horse and don't use dumb, awkwardly worded sentences just to flash your shiny new vocabulary words around. Ok so... my idea of what something entails as its purpose is not sufficient to explain the definition. LMAO. And then to SIMPLIFY it you use the words definiens and definiendum ahahahaha! Yes I know what they are, but it is just so obvious that you are trying to impress people. You used like six clauses to express one thing which was "Your idea of marriage didn't explain the entire purpose of it." Ok I want you to have this quote. My grand-daddy gave this quote to my daddy who gave it to me and now I give it to you. Hemingway: "Question every noun, doubt every adjective, suspect every verb, and examine closely every adverb." Which basically means, don't use words if they don't have a f*cking purpose being there.

Finally, you attack my skill as a *debater* (not spelled with an "o"). I competed in and won policy debate and lincoln douglas debate tournaments in high school so I really don't need to validate myself to you. Especially since you are so insecure about your own horrible spelling that you use overly complex words to compensate.

Hmm. That's an *** official warning *** for you....

I don't have all the answers people. I know how you [guessing you guys are atheist] people work. -.- I've been in debate rooms full of atheists. It's hard enough trying to keep up with all the replies, I'm done answering your peoples replies regarding what the Holy Bible says. As for YOU "Grave_n_idle". Do what you name says and find a grave and stay idle. [lolZ on that last one]

I don't have all the answers people. I know how you [guessing you guys are atheist] people work. -.- I've been in debate rooms full of atheists. It's hard enough trying to keep up with all the replies, I'm done answering your peoples replies regarding what the Holy Bible says. As for YOU "Grave_n_idle". Do what you name says and find a grave and stay idle. [lolZ on that last one]

I'm actually a Christian. I still think that Jesus would likely not condemn modern homosexuality.

O-M-G...I'm not even gunna answer this, except by leaving this reply which would technically be answering.

... for you (death wishes aren't quite up there with death threats, but still definite flamebait; and your second reply is spam) ...

yes of course, why not? Fcuk you frikkin conservatives who say it's evil or wrong, or unnatural. How many failed marriages do you know?And its not just f'd up Xtians, but Muslims and Jews as well.

... and for you.

Surprisingly small crop for a thread of this length, although it's quite possible I missed something while skimming the thread.

[Nobel Hobos]

Can you give a real reason why two adults cannot marry each other if they are of the same sex?

None I can think of.

If two people of opposite sex can marry for entirely personal reasons, and their legal status changes as a consequence, we must allow that perhaps they did it to get visitation rights, income splitting (a tax advantage) or adoption rights ... a whole package really, including some things they might not consider benefits.

There may be grounds for divorce which are based on the lack of sexual relations (depends on jurisdiction), but there is no requirement that they must have sexual relations to marry or to remain married. That's none of the government's business.

Thus, I should be allowed to marry someone of my own sex for personal reasons and get those same benefits. Even if I have NO sexual interest in my new spouse. Even if I'm doing it only to get a tax advantage. Our reasons for marrying are personal.

[North Calaveras]

Can you give a real reason why two adults cannot marry each other if they are of the same sex?

None I can think of.

If two people of opposite sex can marry for entirely personal reasons, and their legal status changes as a consequence, we must allow that perhaps they did it to get visitation rights, income splitting (a tax advantage) or adoption rights ... a whole package really, including some things they might not consider benefits.

There may be grounds for divorce which are based on the lack of sexual relations (depends on jurisdiction), but there is no requirement that they must have sexual relations to marry or to remain married. That's none of the government's business.

Thus, I should be allowed to marry someone of my own sex for personal reasons and get those same benefits. Even if I have NO sexual interest in my new spouse. Even if I'm doing it only to get a tax advantage. Our reasons for marrying are personal.

The reason id like to marry my bf are personal to, so why shouldn't I be allowed to marry him? please give a real reason, other than " i dont like it, cause these two pieces don't fit!"

[Karsol]

Can you give a real reason why two adults cannot marry each other if they are of the same sex?

None I can think of.

If two people of opposite sex can marry for entirely personal reasons, and their legal status changes as a consequence, we must allow that perhaps they did it to get visitation rights, income splitting (a tax advantage) or adoption rights ... a whole package really, including some things they might not consider benefits.

There may be grounds for divorce which are based on the lack of sexual relations (depends on jurisdiction), but there is no requirement that they must have sexual relations to marry or to remain married. That's none of the government's business.

Thus, I should be allowed to marry someone of my own sex for personal reasons and get those same benefits. Even if I have NO sexual interest in my new spouse. Even if I'm doing it only to get a tax advantage. Our reasons for marrying are personal.

The reason id like to marry my bf are personal to, so why shouldn't I be allowed to marry him? please give a real reason, other than " i dont like it, cause these two pieces don't fit!"

I don't even get the 'peices don't fit' arguement, they fit awesomely well ^.^

And it wouldn't be done if you bled out every time, or punctured their intestinal wall. >.>

[Nobel Hobos]

I have an idea, you should wait and find out.

Gays SHOULD NOT get to marry.

Your reason?

They in the state of "marriage" or as was said before, The "benefit ritual" does not benefit the state. Holding up a lawful and just state is a supreme end. The United States, and the various states are lawful and it is better they are benefited than destroyed. Homosexual "benefit rituals" do not give returns to the socity that forms the state.

The people do not exist to serve the state, the state exists to serve the people.

You are correct the social contract formed by the people bouys up the state, However in the service of themselves the people bend the state to it's will. In a great majority of cases this is not only acceptable but benefical to the state, and thereby the people. However in this case giving benefits to a union incapable of giving to the socity in a manner that the other union does namly children. this hurts the state. Heterosexual couples who do not have children hurt the state. Older couples and steral couples who cannot have children hurt the state by their union. This thereby hurts the socity. This gives aid to nothing else but failure of the state. It is not however a sole factor in a failure of a state. However it should be observed that, it is beneficial to have a state. as Thomas Hobbs noted The state of Nature is Violent and without morals. Keeping the state is preferable to a natural state.

The only possible exception to this would be adoption. and not every marrige is capable of supporting fosterd children or adopting a child

Having a child "hurts the state" in education costs.

That's a crazy thing to say.

Rather than delving into the origins of public education in developed nations, just look at what developing nations do if they can afford it at all. Educate the workforce, to make their labour more valuable and thus, the entire country richer. They don't do it just from idealism, it benefits the nation as a whole.

You might be able to argue that educating the intellectually disabled, or educating criminals, doesn't pay off for the country as a whole. But knowing nothing else about an adopted child or ward of the state, you can't assume that they are among the 1 or 2 percent of children who will not return value from education.

I note that what you are arguing against includes the statement "Heterosexual couples who do not have children hurt the state" which is absurdly wrong. Perhaps I'm missing some irony on your part ...

[Quelesh]

30-something pages? Psh. Tl;dr. I'll just answer the question:

Any individuals should have the right to marry any others, in any number or combination they choose, assuming mutual consent among all parties, because there should be no legal consequences of "marriage" whatsoever. If people want to declare their love for one another with a ceremony and a piece of paper (or just want to establish next-of-kin rights and enter into a property-sharing agreement) then let them. The state shouldn't be involved. Let people define the term how they will.

I don't even get the 'peices don't fit' arguement, they fit awesomely well ^.^

Agreed.

[Ochmedious]

"The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man."
Genesis 2 v 22

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Leviticus 18 v 22

See also Romans 1.

No. That is not what marriage is.

But someone did make a good point earlier, heterosexual or homosexual, we're all sinners in need of the grace of God; and He gives mercy on an equal basis through Jesus Christ.

ps. the reply mechanism on this website is awful.

[Nobel Hobos]

Can you give a real reason why two adults cannot marry each other if they are of the same sex?

None I can think of.

If two people of opposite sex can marry for entirely personal reasons, and their legal status changes as a consequence, we must allow that perhaps they did it to get visitation rights, income splitting (a tax advantage) or adoption rights ... a whole package really, including some things they might not consider benefits.

There may be grounds for divorce which are based on the lack of sexual relations (depends on jurisdiction), but there is no requirement that they must have sexual relations to marry or to remain married. That's none of the government's business.

Thus, I should be allowed to marry someone of my own sex for personal reasons and get those same benefits. Even if I have NO sexual interest in my new spouse. Even if I'm doing it only to get a tax advantage. Our reasons for marrying are personal.

The reason id like to marry my bf are personal to, so why shouldn't I be allowed to marry him? please give a real reason, other than " i dont like it, cause these two pieces don't fit!"

I think I see what's going on here. I have been so hostile to you in other threads where I thought you were wrong, that you're thinking that I am arguing with you. Perhaps you think I'm being ironical.

Two consenting adults should be allowed to marry, regardless of the sex (gender) of either of them.

Same sex marriage: perfectly OK ! It's a right which is being denied by BAD LAWS, where it is denied.

Can't make it much plainer than that.

please give a real reason, other than " i dont like it, cause these two pieces don't fit!"

You STILL don't get that joke ?

[Nobel Hobos]

"The Lord God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man."
Genesis 2 v 22

"You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."
Leviticus 18 v 22

See also Romans 1.

No. That is not what marriage is.

But someone did make a good point earlier, heterosexual or homosexual, we're all sinners in need of the grace of God; and He gives mercy on an equal basis through Jesus Christ.

ps. the reply mechanism on this website is awful.

It is actually. On a different system which hosted NS once, there was a feature called MultiQuote. I miss it terribly.

(I have taken the liberty of striking out the parts of your post which are irrelevant.)

[Quelesh]

On a different system which hosted NS once, there was a feature called MultiQuote.

Oh Zeus I love multiquote. I so with these forums had it. (Though you can quote multiple posts from the posting screen by scrolling down in the "topic review" and clicking quote, as long as the posts you want to quote are within the last 20 in the thread.)

And a rep system.

And more smileys.

[Herolandia]

I have never really understood exactly why other people, not of the two consenting parties give a crap about what people do in their personal lives. Of course gay people should be able to marry if they so choose, it shouldn't be allowed for anyone at all to deny love for anyone else, deny Humans the right to love and you love and you lose your humanity if I'm honest.

So, yes since its no business of those outside the two parties within the union, gay couples should marry

[Satyrstone]

If homophobia were not so wide spread in America then this decision could probably be handled by the federal government. Since it isn't the best decision for the moment is to let the states that want it have it. The federal goverment should not show any bias towards any marriage though.

Right, well if all states were to legalize same-sex marriage, then it wouldn't even really be a state issue anymore, but rather a national issue. I'm just not fan of the federal government taking the rights of the states in many cases, I think it greatly reduces our ability to be represented accurately.

I'm not a fan of state governments taking MY rights away.

[Nobel Hobos]

30-something pages? Psh. Tl;dr. I'll just answer the question:

Any individuals should have the right to marry any others, in any number or combination they choose, assuming mutual consent among all parties, because there should be no legal consequences of "marriage" whatsoever.

Yay! Another "abolish marriage in all but name" advocate. Maybe we're not in such a tiny minority as I thought.

If people want to declare their love for one another with a ceremony and a piece of paper (or just want to establish next-of-kin rights and enter into a property-sharing agreement) then let them. The state shouldn't be involved.

Er, without a predefined contract called "marriage" for next-of-kin etc, you have to use a private contract. The state still becomes involved (courts) when the contract is disputed.

In terms of legal fees, the marriage contract is very cheap. It's relatively easy to rule on too, since it's always the same contract but with different parties and actions.

It might still be a good idea to have some standard contracts which could be "mixed n matched", rather than drafting a new contract each time (as with pre-nuptial contracts).

I don't even get the 'peices don't fit' arguement, they fit awesomely well ^.^

Agreed.

If God hadn't meant us to have bumsex, he would have given us all square bumholes.

[Herolandia]

30-something pages? Psh. Tl;dr. I'll just answer the question:

Any individuals should have the right to marry any others, in any number or combination they choose, assuming mutual consent among all parties, because there should be no legal consequences of "marriage" whatsoever.

Yay! Another "abolish marriage in all but name" advocate. Maybe we're not in such a tiny minority as I thought.

If people want to declare their love for one another with a ceremony and a piece of paper (or just want to establish next-of-kin rights and enter into a property-sharing agreement) then let them. The state shouldn't be involved.

Er, without a predefined contract called "marriage" for next-of-kin etc, you have to use a private contract. The state still becomes involved (courts) when the contract is disputed.

In terms of legal fees, the marriage contract is very cheap. It's relatively easy to rule on too, since it's always the same contract but with different parties and actions.

It might still be a good idea to have some standard contracts which could be "mixed n matched", rather than drafting a new contract each time (as with pre-nuptial contracts).

I don't even get the 'peices don't fit' arguement, they fit awesomely well ^.^

Agreed.

If God hadn't meant us to have bumsex, he would have given us all square bumholes.

Bible worthy quote ^

[Nobel Hobos]

On a different system which hosted NS once, there was a feature called MultiQuote.

Oh Zeus I love multiquote. I so with these forums had it. (Though you can quote multiple posts from the posting screen by scrolling down in the "topic review" and clicking quote, as long as the posts you want to quote are within the last 20 in the thread.)

And a rep system.

And more smileys.

1. Yeah. I used to read a thread, clicking Multiquote on every post I thought was interesting, and then when I got to the growing end of the thread, reply to whatever had not had a good reply already. I could also paste all those 'good' posts into my note-book. (Adding more posts from below the edit box only works well when the thread is one page or less. It's woeful when it's 35 pages)

2. Reputation system is rather incompatible with our troll-friendly no-registration system. Which on balance, I like.

3. I want a >snip< smilie. And a quote-insert button for breaking in to what is quoted (like the quote button above the edit-box, but with close-quote first, then open-quote). Hell, sometimes I even miss the sniper. New users should always be armed with a high-powered rifle lol.

All off-topic.

[Satyrstone]

As long as two people love each other it shouldn't matter if they are of the same sex. All that matters is that they love each other.

Just because I love a cupcake doesn't mean I want to fuck it.

Even if you love the cupcake, it won't love you back.

[Nobel Hobos]

As long as two people love each other it shouldn't matter if they are of the same sex. All that matters is that they love each other.

Just because I love a cupcake doesn't mean I want to fuck it.

Even if you love the cupcake, it won't love you back.

Too many cupcakes can make you fat or diabetic, which isn't loving. But if you were starving I think you could feel the love from a cupcake.

[Quelesh]

If people want to declare their love for one another with a ceremony and a piece of paper (or just want to establish next-of-kin rights and enter into a property-sharing agreement) then let them. The state shouldn't be involved.

Er, without a predefined contract called "marriage" for next-of-kin etc, you have to use a private contract. The state still becomes involved (courts) when the contract is disputed.

In terms of legal fees, the marriage contract is very cheap. It's relatively easy to rule on too, since it's always the same contract but with different parties and actions.

It might still be a good idea to have some standard contracts which could be "mixed n matched", rather than drafting a new contract each time (as with pre-nuptial contracts).

True, the state would be involved in contract enforcement. I meant that it should not be involved in allowing certain people to enter into such contracts and prohibiting others from doing so, or allowing such contracts only with certain types or numbers of people.

If God hadn't meant us to have bumsex, he would have given us all square bumholes.

And he wouldn't have given us the prostate either.

[Czardas]

Oh Zeus I love multiquote. I so with these forums had it.

Agreed.

And a rep system.

Like we need more popularity contests around here...

And more smileys.

Personally, I'd be happier if we got rid of the ones we have. Unfortunately, we have to take into account the opinions of the other users of this website, for some strange reason (otherwise, I suspect that by now NSG would have been renamed to "THE GENERALDOME. Two ideologies enter, one ideology leaves.", as per one mod's suggestion.)

Anyway, to go back on topic (sort of): for those of us who advocate removing government from marriage altogether; how will we ensure that married couples receive the important legal benefits the state currently grants if you pay it a fee and hand in a license? Hospital visitation rights, for instance, or tax breaks (assuming you believe in income tax). While "removing the government from marriage" is the solution I prefer as well, there are still issues there, and I'm curious to see how people propose to solve them.

[Der Teutoniker]

The comparison is irrelevant. Could rape not be the immoral part of this story? Why do people always assume that homosexuality is the wicked part of this story?

No, it's actually not. This post was like ten pages ago, but I believe we were discussing whether the acts were, or seemingly qualified as homosexual, or not. I honestly had been removing their actions from a moral setting to try to examine what it was they were doing, not determine what they were doing that was wrong. If you actually read my posts, you will notice that I've been advocating on homosexualities side, I mean, I've made probably 50 posts in this thread, you couldn't have noticed one of those?

[Der Teutoniker]

Thus, I should be allowed to marry someone of my own sex for personal reasons and get those same benefits. Even if I have NO sexual interest in my new spouse. Even if I'm doing it only to get a tax advantage. Our reasons for marrying are personal.

I agree, honestly. I'm married, and though I plan to have children, we haven't started yet (so already our marriage is about us, not just popping out babies, as one anti-same-sex argument goes). We're not married, solely because we like to bump uglies. I mean we "love" each other, and desired a marriage relationship... sounds like a good enough reason for two people to get married to me, regardless of gender. Especially if it's two hot chicks!

[Der Teutoniker]

I'm not a fan of state governments taking MY rights away.

Wow, you're excellent at misreading my posts. I was saying how I would love for same-sex marriage to be legalized nationwide, on a state-by-state basis.

Please stop cherrypicking ten-page old responses and taking them seemingly deliberately out of context.