Should homosexuals have the right to marry?

[1337tonia]

I am not gay.

I feel that gays and lesbians have every right to marry as any other couple, as long as both parties are human and have a heartbeat.

However, I know I feel this way because this is, in actuality, another religious debate, and I am not a religious man.

I think some other sort of civil ceremony should join couples together, one that works exactly like marraige with the religion cut out...or at least ignored.

[Ifreann]

...

C-. Not terrible, but room to improve.

[Phenia]

:( Well, what is the purpose of marriage then? It doesn't have anything to do with love, as a glance at its history will show, and the days of political marriages have passed.

Well played, friend.

Nowadays though, I'd say the purpose of marriage is as a surrogate activity to prevent violent rebellion.

[Dungeyland]

No. Marriage is a sacred institution, that should be protected the natural way. They should have the right to "Civil Partnership", or something with the same rights but a different name. And they shouldn't be allowed to adopt, because the kid would just be bullied or something similar.

[Central Slavia]

Would you rather eat food that fell on the stove, or food that fell on the toilet seat? Would your answer change if I told you that there are fewer -- and less dangerous -- germs on toilet seats than stoves? Probably not. Wouldn't for most poeple. 'disgusting' is cultural.

And way to dodge the question.

You obviously haven't seen my toilet seat...

So, you don't have an answer to the question?

Your hypothetical situation isn't worthy of discussing. IVF is certainly possible for humans with today's technology, however, there are a million other organisms out there that practice male-female copulation for reproductive purposes making the notion that IVF being discovered earlier could possibly lead to homosexual sex appearing as the norm would be rendered null and void as humans learn from their surroundings.

So you don't have an answer to the question. A simple yes would suffice.

I would prefer the stove most of time.
Now firstly, why would i believe him if he simply told me there are less germs etc? (and less bad strains)
In the other case, if he did , i would rather eat from the toilet seat

[Parthenon]

Would you rather eat food that fell on the stove, or food that fell on the toilet seat? Would your answer change if I told you that there are fewer -- and less dangerous -- germs on toilet seats than stoves? Probably not. Wouldn't for most poeple. 'disgusting' is cultural.

And way to dodge the question.

You obviously haven't seen my toilet seat...

So, you don't have an answer to the question?

Your hypothetical situation isn't worthy of discussing. IVF is certainly possible for humans with today's technology, however, there are a million other organisms out there that practice male-female copulation for reproductive purposes making the notion that IVF being discovered earlier could possibly lead to homosexual sex appearing as the norm would be rendered null and void as humans learn from their surroundings.

So you don't have an answer to the question. A simple yes would suffice.

You really need to quit with the flamebait pal, you have a history of such comments. The discussion is between me and Whole Conviction, not you.

[Farnhamia]

...

C-. Not terrible, but room to improve.

I concur. This effort was, however, nicely poised on the line between satire and creative trolling. A bit more absurdity would have certainly lifted its score.

[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?

[Ifreann]

I am not gay.

I feel that gays and lesbians have every right to marry as any other couple, as long as both parties are human and have a heartbeat.

However, I know I feel this way because this is, in actuality, another religious debate, and I am not a religious man.

I think some other sort of civil ceremony should join couples together, one that works exactly like marraige with the religion cut out...or at least ignored.

We have those. We call them civil marriages, generally.

At the end of the day, what the ceremony is doesn't matter. If some religion wants to say that gays are the spawn of Satan then that's their prerogative. But as long as marriage has legal recognition, it shouldn't be limited to opposite sex couples.

[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.

[Central Slavia]

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?

They HAVE the right to marry someone of the opposite sex
so i agree

[Virtualila]

Of course they should be able to. There is no valid reason against it.

[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?

[Helertia]

Would you rather eat food that fell on the stove, or food that fell on the toilet seat? Would your answer change if I told you that there are fewer -- and less dangerous -- germs on toilet seats than stoves? Probably not. Wouldn't for most poeple. 'disgusting' is cultural.

And way to dodge the question.

You obviously haven't seen my toilet seat...

So, you don't have an answer to the question?

Your hypothetical situation isn't worthy of discussing. IVF is certainly possible for humans with today's technology, however, there are a million other organisms out there that practice male-female copulation for reproductive purposes making the notion that IVF being discovered earlier could possibly lead to homosexual sex appearing as the norm would be rendered null and void as humans learn from their surroundings.

So you don't have an answer to the question. A simple yes would suffice.

You really need to quit with the flamebait pal, you have a history of such comments. The discussion is between me and Whole Conviction, not you.

Who me? Why, I am quite offended
*cough cough kettle pot black cough*

[Ifreann]

No. Marriage is a sacred institution,

No, marriage is a legal institution.

that should be protected the natural way.

What is the natural way to protect a sacred institution, out of curiosity?

They should have the right to "Civil Partnership", or something with the same rights but a different name.

Hah, no. If civil partnership is the exact same as marriage, then call it marriage.

And they shouldn't be allowed to adopt, because the kid would just be bullied or something similar.

Better ban glasses, because people with glasses would be bullied.

[Farnhamia]

No. Marriage is a sacred institution, that should be protected the natural way. They should have the right to "Civil Partnership", or something with the same rights but a different name. And they shouldn't be allowed to adopt, because the kid would just be bullied or something similar.

So you're content with creating a secondary class of citizens, are you? Ones who have fewer rights and who are forbidden to do certain things, simply because they happen to be homosexuals?

Fun fact: all marriages in the United States are "civil partnerships." You could have the Pope perform the ceremony in the biggest cathedral in the country, but if you don't have a state-issued marriage license and you don't get it registered with the state, you simply are not married. So, no, you're wrong, marriage is not a sacred institution. Many religions honor and bless marriages but in today's world, in this country, it is secular at its base.

[Herolandia]

We need to kill certain people when they get to be a certain age or if they have a liability.

Uh Oh as a Disabled Gay bloke...looks like I'm fucked (Excuse the pun)

[Helertia]

No. Marriage is a sacred institution, that should be protected the natural way. They should have the right to "Civil Partnership", or something with the same rights but a different name. And they shouldn't be allowed to adopt, because the kid would just be bullied or something similar.

Wouldn't it make more sense to stop the bullies rather than make the bullies find something else to tease them about?

[StAquanis]

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(commitment and love are important but they are not purposes). Though many married couples do not reproduce it does not change the purpose.The argument is a pragmatic one, it is good for humanity and society to uphold heterosexual marriage because of the importance of natural an stable families. 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 should a man. Rights are determined by humanity not sexuality.

[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.

[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...

Stop right there.
1) It isn't.
2) Even if it was, it can be changed.

---

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.

Why would there need to be?

[Station 12]

If they find a church that lets them, yeah.

I mean, most western societies use churches for marriage (whether they're Christian or not) and most of them don't approve. I don't really want to force a law on the church.

But it's nothing against homosexuals, if a pair of people want to bond themselves together forever, it shouldn't matter who you are.

...Protestants are okay with it, aren't they?

[Abrahamadia]

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.

[Herolandia]

There is no benefit to society.

Niether for Bigotry but that seems to be rife

[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.

I'd have thought 10% of the population being more content would be a benefit to society, as would less children in Orphanages.
And what benefit does opposite sex marriage have?