Homosexual Marriage Debate Thread

[1stLightHorse]

Let's start it here and work through this.

Let's just assume for argument's sake that homosexuality is valid and approach marriage from there.

Do you think homosexuals should be allowed to marry? Please state why or why not.

[YeshAtid]

Contrary to the vitriol that prudes and closet homosexuals argue, the implementation of gay marriage will strengthen the institution of marriage rather than weaken it. I can't fathom a reason why two people in love shouldn't be able to have their feelings recognised.

[GrebluBro]

Yes..they should be allowed to marry, but there should be some limitations

[1stLightHorse]

Contrary to the vitriol that prudes and closet homosexuals argue, the implementation of gay marriage will strengthen the institution of marriage rather than weaken it. I can't fathom a reason why two people in love shouldn't be able to have their feelings recognised.

Marriages affect broader society, and especially children. Shouldn't this be part of the equation also?

[1stLightHorse]

Yes..they should be allowed to marry, but there should be some limitations

What did you have in mind?

[Herr Abubu]

Yes, but not through institutions where homosexuality is deemed immoral, like the Catholic Church.

[Mraz]

No, if they reach equal rights in marriage matters, then the next logical step is the possibility for them to have children, either by surrogacy or adoption. Now, without this kid option, they can wear bride dresses if it makes them happy...

[GrebluBro]

What did you have in mind?

I put limitations based on the belief that two men or two women cannot raise the child exactly the way a man and a woman can raise a child.
However, I agree with them having child in a society-friendly terms or Win-Win case

Limitations:
a) Media, movies, etc shouldn't put homosexual things in front which could influence the children a lot.
b) All religious beliefs should be respected, so homosexuals shouldn't act like heterosexuals in public. Also keeping children in mind.
c) They should adopt at least one child before going for impregnation using modern-methods. It is just a Win-Win, to avoid homosexuals raising an infant as much as possible.
d) Heterogeneous couple should be given the maximum rights in adopting the children <10 years first, homosexuals should be given least priority in adopting <10 year old kids
e) In contrary, Homosexual couples should be given priority in adopting post-10 year old kids, then only heterosexuals can.

[ChocolateFace]

No way.Lets just assume Homosexuality is valid and not just a condition of the mind.

The reason why humans get married and stay married is because this is the best way to raise children. Most animals don't have unity among Males and Females. Humans don't start to sexually mature until 13-14 which is why the foundation of a strong family system is vital. Other animal start to sexually mature way earlier then humans and don't need this family structure. Out comes marriage from this structure where Men and Women have a unity all for the best interest of children.

Now many times the original meaning of things are lost because we have advanced so much and the original purpose is no longer thought of. So why should gay people marry now? Someone please explain to me why now. No one can't because most these idiotic ideas that are destroying human civilization are not well thought at all.

[YeshAtid]

Marriages affect broader society, and especially children. Shouldn't this be part of the equation also?

You're in essence embellishing upon this fact. Of course marriages affect society, and? I don't see how that can be used as an argument against same-sex marriage, and I find it somewhat disconcerting that you've linked it with children. I assume you're alluding to gay adoption, which contrary to certain scaremongers will not turn children gay or instill a warped worldview.Two loving people, regardless of their homosexuality, will not be any different from a so-called "normal" family. Let me retort by asking this; Divorces tend to have a detrimental effect upon a nurturing child, should we therefore outlaw it?

[Vukodav]

someone posted this on another forum, it is quote of some feminist bloger,
good for laugh

Gay men are not actually “gay” in the sense that they are attracted to men. They choose to be with men because they view men as better and women as lesser and thus don’t see women as worthy of their time. They stay with other men in order to take use of the power men have in this society. The reason they are looked down on by “homophobic” men is that they are seen as greedy as they want more power than their male person can achieve on their own.

Women who choose to be with other women do it as they see men as what they are. Dangerous, thirsty beasts. They engage romantically and sexually with women in order to prevent themselves from getting harmed by men. This is a natural choice when living in a patriarchal world, and should not be criticized!

This does obviously not mean that men who choose to be with women are good people! They simply want to use women as objects. Women who choose to be with men simply have internalized misogyny and are tricked into thinking they need men to have an enjoyable sex life.

[Prisoner Of Ice]

I think it should be termed a civil union, not a marriage. Beyond that I really don't care, it's not an issue worth fighting over.

[ChocolateFace]

I'll take it a step further. Let's say Gay people have children by donating their sperm or eggs or some other way. Marriage was still made for Male and Female to raise a family. And the original Male and Female system to support children was the best which warranted marriage. So the root of marriage lies in the fact that Males and Females can have kids naturally. So assuming "love" is actually real and Gay people actually "love" each other that still doesn't mean they should get married.

[King Claus]

why would you want to debate this? everybody has his own opinion about this so i geuss you just wanted to make a controversial thread?

[Stimpy]

Yes, they should be able to get married as a union or legal contract between spouses. However, I don't see why they should have to get married in church, it feels hypocritical since homosexuality isn't allowed in any of the abrahamic religions. I don't see why they would want to neither though.

[Mortimer]

no but they can live as registered partners together

[KidMulat]

Ugh. I don't believe that governments have any right in validating/invalidating or giving benefits to marriage or married couples/trios/groups; hetero or homosexual or queer.

Although until we get out of this paradigm I can understand why people want gay marriage; I still eye roll at the heteronormative and assimilationist politics or the rhetoric that its the last frontier when really its not for most LGBTTQ people.

[YeshAtid]

no but they can live as registered partners together

:rolleyes:

[KidMulat]

someone posted this on another forum, it is quote of some feminist bloger,
good for laugh

What the fuck? I guess its a parody commentary on all the hyperbole around the origin and meaning of homosexuality and sexism in society.

[Mortimer]

Ugh. I don't believe that governments have any right in validating/invalidating or giving benefits to marriage or married couples/trios/groups; hetero or homosexual or queer.

Although until we get out of this paradigm I can understand why people want gay marriage; I still eye roll at the heteronormative and assimilationist politics or the rhetoric that its the last frontier when really its not for most LGBTTQ people.

heteronormative is normal. because hetero is the norm and normal gay is just deviant form of sexuality

[1stLightHorse]

to quote myself from the other thread:

What about male and female siblings who are "in love" and decide to procreate, where both have stable jobs and have created a loving family environment where any children would be raised happily and live contently?

Surely, two fathers is no less awkward than a sibling-couple mother and father. All it would take is public acceptance, the media machine will roll out saying that siblings who love each other have a right to have it recognized in law.

If "love" is the only precondition for marriage, then why can't a woman marry her Golden Retriever? They don't need to be genetically compatible because they love each other. He just follows her everywhere with a smile on his face, and she knows he can't "break her heart" or "cheat" on her, and that's enough to win her love. Technically, when he starts humping her leg, he just consented. So you have two consenting beings. Why can't this be allowed? They're not hurting anyone else, or affecting anyone else with their actions.

If the state doesn't have the right to regulate marriage, these scenarios also come under it.

If marriage only requires love to be valid, then these scenarios come under that too.

The love/consent/stability arguments are invalid for justifying homosexual marriage IMO.

[YeshAtid]

People ought to take a more libertarian stance to issues such as marriage and what constitutes it. Provided all the parties are consenting and are at no conscious risk of being harmed, then it should be tolerated though not necessarily accepted. This argument is also immune from caveats relating to Pedophilia since one of the parties is unlikely to have given consent, thus nullifying its validity.

[YeshAtid]

to quote myself from the other thread:

.

Aren't you perhaps confusing romantic love with Platonic love? In the extraordinary scenarios that you've cited, the love felt is hardly to have emanated from a genuine physical attraction, but rather from sentiments that aren't sexual at all.

[Weedman]

Aren't you perhaps confusing romantic love from Platonic love? In the extraordinary scenarios that you've cited, the love felt is hardly to have emanated from a genuine physical attraction, but rather from sentiments that aren't sexual at all.

but when talks about consenting adult siblings being married he means incest, which is sexual in nature.

[1stLightHorse]

Aren't you perhaps confusing romantic love from Platonic love? In the extraordinary scenarios that you've cited, the love felt is hardly to have emanated from a genuine physical attraction, but rather from sentiments that aren't sexual at all.

I don't think a brother and sister who want to get married and have children would do so because of platonic love.

[YeshAtid]

but when talks about consenting adult siblings being married he means incest, which is sexual in nature.

I still think incest is initially a platonic form of love ( Oedipus complex)that later progresses into a sexual relationship.

[Vukodav]

What the fuck? I guess its a parody commentary on all the hyperbole around the origin and meaning of homosexuality and sexism in society.
nope, it is not parody at all. just some sort of extreme feminism. I was reading her blog few days ago and I cant really figure out if she is extremely stupid or mentally ill.
I have found another article that day, different author (this is off topic)

As a former Biology major the article entitled, “The Importance of Feminist Critique for Contemporary Cell Biology” was very relevant to my own experience as a student and developing researcher. While I was not personally aware of the lack of feminist critique in the laboratory at the time, I distinctly remember a diagram from my introductory biology course my freshman year which gave a brief description of fertilization theories over the centuries.
The diagram was of a sperm cell which had, encased in it, a microscopic human complete with all fingers, toes, eyes and nose next to the nutrient rich yet passive ovum.
Personal experiences are guided by societal ideals and norms which are influenced by a number of areas of study that are seemingly objective. This is a concept that is readily acceptable. However, because certain areas of study are valued and respected because of their objectivity, such as natural sciences, they are thought to not fall victim to stereotypes or a modern society that is subject to the media as well as a culture that has been dominated by hegemonic masculinity. This article shed light on how the development of scientific data and concepts was and still may be skewed by society and how these theories, in turn, reinforce societal perceptions of masculinity and femininity. This idea was new to me.
What I found most interesting was the parallel between concepts of fertilization and the narrative of Sleeping Beauty. (TUNING OFF SLOWLY AT THIS POINT).
Fertilization, in some instances, is explained in scientific writings as one might retell a beloved childhood fairytale. And in most cases, these are supposed to be anatomical and physiological comparisons using fancy scientific lingo. Fertilization is one of the most natural processes known to the living and need not be glamorized as a fairytale by some so-called objective scientists.

I wonder how can someone who's ideology is feminism can be more objective than anyone else.

[YeshAtid]

I don't think a brother and sister who want to get married and have children would do so because of platonic love.

That's likely the culmination of Platonic love and a later propensity to physical attraction. Freud conveyed incest as a condition that sprung from a need to be loved, and to prolong the state of childhood bliss, that soon turned into lust. Moreover, you likely have the taboo element soon becoming apparent.

[1stLightHorse]

That's likely the culmination of Platonic love and a later propensity to physical attraction. Freud conveyed incest as a condition that sprung from a need to be loved, and to prolong the state of childhood bliss, that soon turned into lust. Moreover, you likely have the taboo element becoming apparent.

Isn't there a huge taboo element in homosexuality too though? I mean only 30 years ago or less, it was considered a mental illness in western psychiatry.

[Weedman]

I still think incest is initially a platonic form of love ( Oedipus complex)that later progresses into a sexual relationship.

regardless of how it starts, or the emotions behind it, the point is that it's sexual in nature ........ so should 2 consenting adult siblings be legally allowed to marry one another if they so choose?

[YeshAtid]

Isn't there a huge taboo element in homosexuality too though? I mean only 30 years ago or less, it was considered a mental illness in western psychiatry.

Homosexuality and incest have throughout history wavered in their status, though incest has perhaps been deemed taboo for a greater period of time. You're correct in stating that homosexuality was considered a mental illness, and this is actually still the case in some countries, but this status has more or less dissipated now. Whereas, incest has a greater stigma attached to it, and this is likely attributable to the genetic defects that can arise from such a relationship, which on the whole seek to produce offspring. Whilst, aids was not long ago considered divine punishment, due to greater understanding such feelings have receded, whilst for incest I don't think it will.

[YeshAtid]

regardless of how it starts, or the emotions behind it, the point is that it's sexual in nature ........ so should 2 consenting adult siblings be legally allowed to marry one another if they so choose?

But as I stated, only as a later consequence. In the case of incest, if the couple vow never to have children then it should be legalised.

[Weedman]

But as I stated, only as a later consequence. In the case of incest, if the couple vow never to have children then it should be legalised:picard1:.

do you actually agree with that? INCEST should be allowed legally if they vow to not have children?

what's next, they fight for their right to have children anyway? I mean not all inbred children come out with birth defects

do you agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry if they vow not to adopt any children ever?

Its a similar argument. Many people disagree with a same sex couple raising children for any number of reasons.

but I have to ask again, do you SERIOUSLY agree that INCEST should be allowed and legal as long as they are 2 consenting sibling adults?
c'mon now.

I know what you are saying theoretically but in actual practice and reality do you agree that it should be legal?

[YeshAtid]

do you SERIOUSLY agree that INCEST should be allowed and legal as long as they are 2 consenting adults?
c'mon now.

I know what you are saying theoretically but in actual practice and reality do you agree with legalized incestual marriage between consenting adult siblings?

Within the aforementioned limits, yes. Even though it should be legalized doesn't necessarily mean I agree with it- I don't

[Mazik]

It mostly depends on how the person view the word marriage. For some people it's just a concept, for some others it's made for males and females to raise a family, and that it should just be allowed for those who naturally can procreate with each other. But as far as I know, kids will still be born, with or without marriage. Just because two people get married doesn't mean they will have kids, and that two people decide not to get married doesn't mean they won't have kids. So the idea that it's solely made for heterosexual couples to raise a family and have kids is quite illogical to me.

The meaning of the word has also changed much throughout the years, from a juridical engagement that controlled things such as inheritance. To rather be a way to show true love, allegiance and faith to the partner. And what would possibly be wrong with letting two people of the same sex take part of this?

For me it's strange that this question has turned so big, it's after all just to include a small minority in a concept. People will still marry as before, the idea won't be changed just because a few others also will get access to it.

[LightHouse89]

two words. fuck no.

[LightHouse89]

I am sorry but I do not find it normal for a man to stick his penis into another mans ass. i dont understand why people are trying to ocnvince me that such an act is normal and equal to heterosexual behavior. It really isnt.

[LightHouse89]

do you actually agree with that? INCEST should be allowed legally if they vow to not have children?

what's next, they fight for their right to have children anyway? I mean not all inbred children come out with birth defects

do you agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry if they vow not to adopt any children ever?

Its a similar argument. Many people disagree with a same sex couple raising children for any number of reasons.

but I have to ask again, do you SERIOUSLY agree that INCEST should be allowed and legal as long as they are 2 consenting sibling adults?
c'mon now.

I know what you are saying theoretically but in actual practice and reality do you agree that it should be legal?

Next beastiality will be acceptable because people who harbor the desire to sleep with animals were born that way and they are human and deserve human rights. At this point I will rebuild Noahs arc and literally mount machine guns and rckets on it and post a sign of who is wlecome abaoard and who isnt. You can rest assure these fruit loops will not be welcome aboard.

The other day the Lutheran church in my town married two gay men it was so disgusting. I was like false christians and a fake marriage to me. Martin Luther would puke on himself if he knew that two men got married in his church.

[rhiannon]

Voted to make it legal here. Why should I as a heterosexual woman Who is happily married feel in any way threatened by two people of the same gender who happen to love each other and want the same thing?:noidea::noidea::confused3:

[Incal]

nope, it is not parody at all. just some sort of extreme feminism. I was reading her blog few days ago and I cant really figure out if she is extremely stupid or mentally ill.
I have found another article that day, different author (this is off topic)


I wonder how can someone who's ideology is feminism can be more objective than anyone else.

Could you share the blog's link? I'm bored ATM and could use some laughs.

[LightHouse89]

to quote myself from the other thread:

What about male and female siblings who are "in love" and decide to procreate, where both have stable jobs and have created a loving family environment where any children would be raised happily and live contently?

Surely, two fathers is no less awkward than a sibling-couple mother and father. All it would take is public acceptance, the media machine will roll out saying that siblings who love each other have a right to have it recognized in law.

If "love" is the only precondition for marriage, then why can't a woman marry her Golden Retriever? They don't need to be genetically compatible because they love each other. He just follows her everywhere with a smile on his face, and she knows he can't "break her heart" or "cheat" on her, and that's enough to win her love. Technically, when he starts humping her leg, he just consented. So you have two consenting beings. Why can't this be allowed? They're not hurting anyone else, or affecting anyone else with their actions.

If the state doesn't have the right to regulate marriage, these scenarios also come under it.

If marriage only requires love to be valid, then these scenarios come under that too.

The love/consent/stability arguments are invalid for justifying homosexual marriage IMO.

Excellent! :thumb001:

[LightHouse89]

do you actually agree with that? INCEST should be allowed legally if they vow to not have children?

what's next, they fight for their right to have children anyway? I mean not all inbred children come out with birth defects

do you agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry if they vow not to adopt any children ever?

Its a similar argument. Many people disagree with a same sex couple raising children for any number of reasons.

but I have to ask again, do you SERIOUSLY agree that INCEST should be allowed and legal as long as they are 2 consenting sibling adults?
c'mon now.

I know what you are saying theoretically but in actual practice and reality do you agree that it should be legal?

pedophilia should too because after all Pedophiles are born that way. :rolleyes: LOL the absurdity in the west today is enough for me to just accept anything and everything because it can be scientifically proven people are born a certain way LOL even though we know it isn't right or normal. But hey lets end traditional values and be different right?

[LightHouse89]

Voted to make it legal here. Why should I as a heterosexual woman Who is happily married feel in any way threatened by two people of the same gender who happen to love each other and want the same thing?:noidea::noidea::confused3:

It shames our culture and makes us look strange to the world. But hey who care about our cultures reputation in the world. We will be remembered as the Sodom. This is why I would rather live in the woods and away from the cities of America where these trashy ideas come from. If God comes down and turns the cities into salt I will be safe in my log cabin in the mountains . The meek shall inherit the Earth either way just make sure I am not a Sodomite or city dweller those are the first places to be hit with his wrath.

[Hadouken]

But as I stated, only as a later consequence. In the case of incest, if the couple vow never to have children then it should be legalised.

wtf

whats next ?

[Fortis in Arduis]

I am sorry but I do not find it normal for a man to stick his penis into another mans ass. i dont understand why people are trying to ocnvince me that such an act is normal and equal to heterosexual behavior. It really isnt.

That is what this is about. Your personal distaste for something that is not to your... personal taste.

No-one said that it was normal or equal, and not all homosexuals do that, especially not the lady homos. Ok?

<-- Against gay marriage, for same-sex civil unions.

[rhiannon]

It shames our culture and makes us look strange to the world. But hey who care about our cultures reputation in the world. We will be remembered as the Sodom. This is why I would rather live in the woods and away from the cities of America where these trashy ideas come from. If God comes down and turns the cities into salt I will be safe in my log cabin in the mountains . The meek shall inherit the Earth either way just make sure I am not a Sodomite or city dweller those are the first places to be hit with his wrath.
It's legal in many parts of Europe as well.
It appears most of what dictates your critical thought processes on this topic is your allegiance to your religious views. For those of us unfettered by the presence of any religious views, this topic can be approached more objectively.:)

Marriage between two people who love one another (both being consenting adults of course as I do NOT condone child marriages ever) has no bearing on what makes my marriage special. I feel there is no threat to the Institution of Marriage so long as those getting married are doing so for the right reasons. Trust me, plenty of hetero marriages are a shame as it stands.

Legalize it. If people are hung up about the idea of calling it marriage, they can call it something else for all I care, but the legality and bennies should remain the same IMO.