How and Why: Same Sex Marrige

[Lady_Ester]

In the US, there's a massive debate about the legalization and in general SSM.
I want to hear what your thoughts are on the matter primarily, but I also what to focus on why we formed that opinion.
There is no right or wrong opinion.
If you are for it, why? Why should it be passed?
If you are against it, why? Why should it not be passed?

here's a few things to kind of get things going, and in case your not up to speed in a very fast moving and dynamic topic.

From what I've been able to collect, and whom are FOR SSM make fairly rational points, but they have a tendency to compare SSM with other things like slavery and discrimination... Is the topic of SSM similar to discrimination?

Those whom are AGAINST SSM commonly bring up points that SSM is immoral, but why? You may believe what you wish, but shouldn't there be a division of church and state? And another hot one is 'the children' studies are all over the board on this one, mainly because the "accredited" scientists and researchers gathering the data are cherry picking to make their graphs prove EITHER POINT (AKA almost all graphs now are baised to the core, and not in favor of either side). And a last point often brought up is the religious aspect of SSM. that topic is huge, but I please urge you to remember the seperation of church and state. I understand that you strongly feel that your church should not allow SSM and that you may feel that it is immoral.

note: I use the term marriage as a term of legal bonding rather than religious bonding of two people. I wish to try to steer clear of marriage for now being thought of as two people and a priest. also, please refrain from trolling and argueing with one another. I have my opinion, and I probably won't like yours. likewise you probably won't like my opinion or that other guy's. but this isn't about "Who's opinion is right and more justified" I purely want to see how and why you came about to your opinion and why you support it.

[R1skTak3r]

Well first of all good luck keeping the topic clean, cause I think that might be a problem in case it is a successful debate.
In general I am AGAINST SSM, which shouldent be confused with being against homosexuality, which I am not!
Now to further explain my opinion -
Homosexuality is abnormal (which shouldent be inferred as bad), I think theres a a consensus on that, and something abnormal shouldent intertwine with a normal procedure like the marital institution.
This isnt to say gay couples shouldent exist, its just to say I think they shouldent be allowed to formally marry, or have a baby together.
What anyone shoves up their ass is their own private business, but in a functioning society some borders need to be set, in order to maintain some sort of balance.
Why cant a man decide to marry his horse? that is if he loves him? or his computer since he loves porn? perhaps his daughter if she agrees?
I know this sounds radical and absurd but hey 50 years ago if you said the words gay and marriage together you would become a laughingstock.
Also on a side note its a bit selfish for a gay couple to have a baby, knowing full well they are incapable of giving the same things a hetro couple can, not to mention the kid growing up in a very tough environment socially, which never spells well for his mental health.
Gay couples wanna be together forever, fine, have some sort of partnership papers or something of that sort, but the marriage institution IMO is sacred, and is, btw, one of the last remaining hetro havens.

[Lady_Ester]

Originally Posted by R1skTak3r

Well first of all good luck keeping the topic clean, cause I think that might be a problem in case it is a successful debate.
In general I am AGAINST SSM, which shouldent be confused with being against homosexuality, which I am not!
Now to further explain my opinion -
Homosexuality is abnormal (which shouldent be inferred as bad), I think theres a a consensus on that, and something abnormal shouldent intertwine with a normal procedure like the marital institution.
This isnt to say gay couples shouldent exist, its just to say I think they shouldent be allowed to formally marry, or have a baby together.
What anyone shoves up their ass is their own private business, but in a functioning society some borders need to be set, in order to maintain some sort of balance.
Why cant a man decide to marry his horse? that is if he loves him? or his computer since he loves porn? perhaps his daughter if she agrees?
I know this sounds radical and absurd but hey 50 years ago if you said the words gay and marriage together you would become a laughingstock.
Also on a side note its a bit selfish for a gay couple to have a baby, knowing full well they are incapable of giving the same things a hetro couple can, not to mention the kid growing up in a very tough environment socially, which never spells well for his mental health.
Gay couples wanna be together forever, fine, have some sort of partnership papers or something of that sort, but the marriage institution IMO is sacred, and is, btw, one of the last remaining hetro havens.

for the pure sake of my research, can you please elaborate on why a gay/lesbian couple cannot raise a child?
there are statistics that say they can, and other that say they cannot. (most disturbing is that accredited facilities are spewing out both)
I just want to see the why behind your position really.

[R1skTak3r]

Originally Posted by Lady_Ester

for the pure sake of my research, can you please elaborate on why a gay/lesbian couple cannot raise a child?
there are statistics that say they can, and other that say they cannot. (most disturbing is that accredited facilities are spewing out both)
I just want to see the why behind your position really.

Well honestly the statistics are the disturbing thing here, you are practically gambling on yet to be born children's lives based on a statistical research.
I mean, those who turn out fine, ok, but those that fall on the wrong side of the equation... why do we need it?
Yeah I know, you could argue that Hetro couples are just as able to fuck up their child's life has Gay couples, but in that case its purely theoretical while here you have researches and more formed opinions on that subject.

TOTALLY THEORETICALLY! - If a study showed that smoking parents have a 50% chance to deliver a damaged baby into the world, would you tell them to take their chance or would you forbid them from smoking?
Obviously the example isnt the most fitting but it comes to show you that when in doubt you shouldent take chances on people's lives.

My own reasoning is quite simple to tell you the truth, I cant imagine 2 fathers (physiologically or mentally) giving the same care to a baby as a biological mother (and I aint talking just breast feeding but total nurture), and I dont see 2 mothers providing a baby the things a father can.
Obviously like you said those things vary and are very subjective but thats what makes it so damn risky.

[Amergin's Cola]

Originally Posted by R1skTak3r

Well first of all good luck keeping the topic clean, cause I think that might be a problem in case it is a successful debate.
In general I am AGAINST SSM, which shouldent be confused with being against homosexuality, which I am not!
Now to further explain my opinion -
Homosexuality is abnormal (which shouldent be inferred as bad), I think theres a a consensus on that, and something abnormal shouldent intertwine with a normal procedure like the marital institution.
This isnt to say gay couples shouldent exist, its just to say I think they shouldent be allowed to formally marry, or have a baby together.
What anyone shoves up their ass is their own private business, but in a functioning society some borders need to be set, in order to maintain some sort of balance.
Why cant a man decide to marry his horse? that is if he loves him? or his computer since he loves porn? perhaps his daughter if she agrees?
I know this sounds radical and absurd but hey 50 years ago if you said the words gay and marriage together you would become a laughingstock.
Also on a side note its a bit selfish for a gay couple to have a baby, knowing full well they are incapable of giving the same things a hetro couple can, not to mention the kid growing up in a very tough environment socially, which never spells well for his mental health.
Gay couples wanna be together forever, fine, have some sort of partnership papers or something of that sort, but the marriage institution IMO is sacred, and is, btw, one of the last remaining hetro havens.

2 points:

1- how is monogamy "normal" at all? How do you define "normal"? Because, if you look at how our biology and psychology is geared, we really shouldn't be as monogamous as we are today. This idea of monogamy is mostly bred from an aversion to jealousy, but you can hardly say that's an area for the government to go into.
So why is it that it's perfectly "normal" for a man and woman to get married, but not a man and another man, when not only is our species not specifically geared for a monogamous male-female relationship, but there are other animals that conduct homosexual acts?

FURTHERMORE, why is it that marriage should be sacred? According to whom/what? The Bible? Marriage ceremonies were conducted long before the advent of monotheism, and they never spelled out "gays cannot be 'married'". Who is to define what marriage is? If we let religion define it, how are we not breaking the separation of church in state, our first amendment?

2- Why is it that children raised by homosexual parents are abnormal? I have yet to see any scientific evidence agreeing with this - on the contrary, all the evidence I've seen from various sources has said that either the kids turn out as normal as hetero-children, or even more normal.

That said, if we're so worried about how children are being raised, why is it that heterosexual couples can get married but have a higher chance of getting divorced, yet it's perfectly fine for them to have children and try to split those children? Going based on divorce rates we should be ENCOURAGING homosexual couples to adopt, shouldn't we?

Here's the thing: The whole idea of "children need a male and female role model" are ridiculous. They need both models to do what? Be "normal"? As normal as any other angst-filled rebellious teen in America? Can a masculine gay man and feminine gay man not raise children, then? What about a feminine male and feminine female?

The idea stems from the conservative viewpoint that because "that's how it's always been done", it should continue to be done that way. Except that homosexuality has been around in human culture for milennia. Why is it bad now?

[Naroblas]

but I please urge you to remember the seperation of church and state

That is your point of view. For many people, the state shouldn't be separated from the religious institution. It goes for christians and it goes for muslims.

Imagine if Jesus came down from heaven tomorrow. Will christians follow Obama or Jesus ? Don't tell me they can follow both. Let's assume Obama is for SSM and Jesus is against SSM. Christians will follow Jesus.

Point made.

[pYr-0-MaNe]

why NOT? /thread


and for all those stupid bigots:

religion and state have to be separated as soon as there is one citizen not believing in this particular religion for obvious reasons of justice. end of discussion. btw: the separation of church and state allows you to live your personal religion without reglementation.

homosexuality is NOT classified a pathological phenomena by any of the important classification manuals like the ICD-10.

wether a thing is normal or not is an entirely subjective judgement. as a consequence, this category has pretty much vanished from science. obviously, laws can't be made because of subjective judgements.

statistics indicate that children's well-being doesn't depend on the sexual orientation of their parents.

ps: statistics indicate that evangelical parents tend to beat their children more often. that IS proven to be harmful to children.

pps: jesus won't come. no.

@ladyeater: for whom are u doing this research?

[Varuka]

You forgot the 3rd viewpoint:

Marriage should be abolished / reworked.

People need to stop equating legal marriage ("getting tax breaks to help get you ready to raise children and sharing some rights with your partner") with religious marriage (... don't know / don't care, whatever the religion wants it to be / mean).

Of course gay couples deserve to be able to share in the same legal contracts conferring rights to their partners as straight couples. I'm fairly sure almost everyone agrees to this.

After establishing that, I would then argue same-sex couples looking to raise a child should then get the same tax breaks / etc., that different-sex couples get.

Trying to take these two separate issues on at once just because they're tied to the religious term "marriage" is silly.

[Ptolemi]

Originally Posted by Naroblas

That is your point of view. For many people, the state shouldn't be separated from the religious institution.

The educated people on this planet realize that religion and state have to be separated. The only way to keep a society pluralistic, diverse, tolerant, and fair is to make sure that religion and government do not mix; i.e secular.

When you mix religion with government you produce a toxic combination that leads to the poisoning of the society and issues. Religion is a private matter, not a public one. You can believe that God hates pork, but that shit is to stay private and not interfere in the lives of other.

Originally Posted by R1skTak3r

Why cant a man decide to marry his horse? that is if he loves him? or his computer since he loves porn? perhaps his daughter if she agrees?

I think it is extremely unfair and ignorant to equate homosexuals to bestiality or incest. They are simply not on equal footing.

Originally Posted by R1skTak3r

Gay couples wanna be together forever, fine, have some sort of partnership papers or something of that sort, but the marriage institution IMO is sacred, and is, btw, one of the last remaining hetro havens.

"Some sort of partnership papers or something" doesn't really lend credibility to your argument. You are not even sure what you stand for. Further to say that marriage is sacred is stretching it quite a lot.

Besides the fact that more than 50% of marriages in the United States end up in a divorce marriage has not bee about love or happiness until very, VERY recently. Throughout 99% of its history marriage has been about money, power, women being baby factories, prestige, a way for women to secure themselves financially, and out of necessity. Is that sacred? A black woman and a white man couldn't get married until recently. Is that sacred? In Islam their prophet marries a six year old and then has sex with her when she is nine. Is that sacred? Women were thrown away and beaten to death if at their wedding night the sheets weren't bloody. Is that sacred?

You should read history before claiming something is sacred.

Originally Posted by pYr-0-MaNe

wether a thing is normal or not is an entirely subjective judgement. as a consequence, this category has pretty much vanished from science. obviously, laws can't be made because of subjective judgements.

I do not agree here. Something is normal if it is out of the norm. Homosexuality is abnormal. That is all. It is abnormal. That doesn't mean it is good or bad. It is just abnormal, since the vast majority of people are straight.

[Varuka]

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

I think it is extremely unfair and ignorant to equate homosexuals to bestiality or incest. They are simply not on equal footing.

Why not? If marriage is secular, why can't I sign over my hospital-visitation-rights, inheritance, etc. over to my horse? Part of living in a free society is being free to do dumb things.

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

Women were thrown away and beaten to death if at their marriage night the sheets were bloody. Is that sacred?

You mean weren't bloody. The sheets had to be bloody to show she was a virgin (and had never been horseback riding, done gymnastics, etc.).

[Ptolemi]

Originally Posted by Varuka

Why not? If marriage is secular, why can't I sign over my hospital-visitation-rights, inheritance, etc. over to my horse? Part of living in a free society is being free to do dumb things.

Again that is just not a fair analogy. We are not talking about having sex with an animal or handing over your hospital decision to a horse. We are talking about two conscious adults who love each other and want to live together.

Trying to compare bestiality to homosexuals is quite ignorant and false. The two are not the remotely the same. Religious leaders and scripture would like you to believe that, but they are not.

Homosexuality is not only a form of sex, but a form of love and for that reason it deserves our respect.

also thx for the were/weren't catch ... i did mean to say weren't

[Varuka]

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

Again that is just not a fair analogy. We are not talking about having sex with an animal or handing over your hospital decision to a horse. We are talking about two conscious adults who love each other and want to live together.

Trying to compare bestiality to homosexuals is quite ignorant and false. The two are not the remotely the same. Religious leaders and scripture would like you to believe that, but they are not.

Homosexuality is not only a form of sex, but a form of love and for that reason it deserves our respect.

The fact that you're insistent upon relating sex and marriage tells me you're not married.

I'm not saying anything about sex / marriage / religion here. I'm just saying, as far as the U.S. government is concerned, there are 300-some-odd rights that come with being married, and it ends there. That's the secular interpretation (and there's nothing wrong with it, IMO).

Just because you enter into that contract with someone doesn't mean you get to have sex with them! It doesn't mean you love them now and forever. It doesn't mean anything, except you're entered into a contract regarding those rights that have been outlined.

Your spouse can visit you in the hospital without requiring permission. They're first in line for inheritance. You can file jointly for taxes / claim them as a dependent. Whatever else.

[Naroblas]

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

The educated people on this planet realize that religion and state have to be separated. The only way to keep a society pluralistic, diverse, tolerant, and fair is to make sure that religion and government do not mix; i.e secular.

When you mix religion with government you produce a toxic combination that leads to the poisoning of the society and issues. Religion is a private matter, not a public one. You can believe that God hates pork, but that shit is to stay private and not interfere in the lives of other.

Religious people (specially muslims, today's christians aren't true christians) do not want a pluralistic and diverse society.

A muslim would prefer living in a 100% muslim country with muslim laws.

You misunderstand religion (no surprise here) if you think religion is just about private stuff like forbidding of pork. Religion also includes POLITICAL ideologies.

Religion is a private matter

For you atheists it is. For believers it isn't.

Homosexuality is not only a form of sex, but a form of love and for that reason it deserves our respect.

I'm a 90 year old man. I love a 10 year old boy. Can I marry him, pretty please?

ps : any of you would like to be raised by homosexuals? anyone?

[Ptolemi]

What the fuck are you talking about? All I am saying is that it should be legal for a gay couple to receive the rights a heterosexual couple gets. You are confusing me.

[Varuka]

Originally Posted by Ptolemi

What the fuck are you talking about? All I am saying is that it should be legal for a gay couple to receive the rights a heterosexual couple gets. You are confusing me.

And I agree. I guess we can just agree to agree, then.

I was simply trying to make the point that legal marriage and the cultural / religious phenomena are completely unrelated, and that legal marriage has nothing to do with sexuality / love.

Originally Posted by Naroblas

I'm a 90 year old man. I love a 10 year old boy. Can I marry him, pretty please?

ps : any of you would like to be raised by homosexuals? anyone?

This is just flamebaiting. Tell me which of the following rights you object to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_..._United_States

Wouldn't be okay for a 90-year-old man to give to a 10-year-old boy. Wait, wait, I know -- it's the joint filling of bankruptcy.

Because that's ALL state-recognized marriage is. (No, a 90 year-old-man shouldn't be allowed to have sex with a 10 year-old-boy. That has absolutely nothing to do with those rights. Stop being weird.)

And I wouldn't mind being raised by homosexuals.

[Ptolemi]

I just cut off my post about secularism as Narbolas is trying to derail this thread by stating that he speaks for the majority of the Muslim world. History has shown that religiously based governments fail and that a secular based constitution is the way to secure a plural, tolerant, and diverse society. I am done arguing about secularism with you.

Originally Posted by Naroblas

I'm a 90 year old man. I love a 10 year old boy. Can I marry him, pretty please?

ps : any of you would like to be raised by homosexuals? anyone?

You just compared two adults in a consensual relationship to a man having sex with a child. Completely dishonest, disingenuous, and malicious.


I would suggest that you stay away from child abuse and having sex with children since your own prophet had sex with a nine year old girl.

[Naroblas]

Do not talk like you represent the majority of Muslims. You do not speak for them.

I don't talk like I represent any muslim at all. In fact I don't give a shit about them. What I say is what the Quran says. Quran has the sharia, it has laws for the state. Do you think muslims that follow the Quran want to live with atheists and pagans ? You know the answer.

A very simple way to show that secular governments are preferred is to observe immigration. People overwhelmingly choose to immigrate to countries with secular constitutions and avoid places where religious leaders run the show. Secular countries are simply better places to live. That just goes without question.

A very simple rule of reason is to never rely on what believers do to judge a religion. You haven't learned it yet because you like to do it.
Most of muslims countries are lead by greedy ignorant corrupted leader. It wasn't always that way in the history of Islam, you know.

There are many secularists who are religious. Do not think that you must be an atheist to be a secularist.

Yea sure. There are also muslims who visit russian prostitutes, drink alcohol and eat pork in Dubai. There are also christians and muslims who support homosexuality. And? It is clear that what they do isn't what their religion tells them to do.

Same applies to the "religious" secularists.

that a secular based constitution is the way to secure a plural, tolerant, and diverse society.

hey btw

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Globa...utterly-failed

if you knew anything about secular countries you would know every single country is becoming more and more intolerant towards immigrants and extreme right parties are becoming more popular every year.

[Ptolemi]

Stick to the thread. We do not care if you hate Atheists, Pagans, Jews, and Christians. We do not care that you think you are the judge of who is and isn't a true Muslim. We do not care if you think you have the ultimate truth in one book.


Make an argument for or against gay marriage and present your evidence and proof.

[Amergin's Cola]

First, homosexual marriage is till between two people. WAY different from bestiality. We also have biological evidence as to why incest is maladaptive, so that's out.

Second, the separation of church and state is in our constitution. If we're talking US, you cannot take any word from any religion for government. If you think we should, you're in the minority.

Third, Naroblas, you have consistently shown your hardline view supporting sharia and exclusive Islam. That's in the minority in the US. The Middle East can do their own thing, even though the civilized Western world will look down upon the Middle East for their inhumane policies based on a set of old books and texts.

[Idioticus]

If something is not harmful to others, why should they not do it?

In Finland there was some sort of religious debate or something where one of the religious leading people said: No gay people to church!
After that, tens of thousands of people left the church within a few days.

anything backed by:
- religion.
- personal moral beliefs.
- personal beliefs.
- political views.
- racial blah blah
Should not ever be considered even half serious on any debate.
As long as anti-SSM people can't come up with proper arguments, only those based on those mentioned above, SSM should be allowed.