Gay Marriage? You'r Thoughts?

[Arathian]

It does not have to. Gay marriage is a good thing, theres not one proper reason against it. Not a single one.

well, couldn't resist any more. Here comes the wall o'text:

Yes, yes there is a proper arguement against gay marriage, and you probably agree with it. No, it isn't what you might think.

First of all, one must understand what "marriage" is. Marriage is two things. The first thing is the legal part. Marriage allows you to be able to pass your inheritance to your significant other, it allows them to visit you to the hospital, it allows you to buy the "family ticket" at the park and so on. It is NOT directly connected to ANY monetary benefits. These are connected to children exclusively, at least in Greece and as far as I know in the US too (else all would get married to get free cash).

The second part of the marriage is the whole religious thing. Yes, it exists. Marriage, in the western world (and gay marriage IS a western world issue) is directly connected to the christian church. Now, before you scream and -1, read on please. This is not the LEGAL part, however it is a deeply entrenched tradition.

The reason religious people are against gay marriage is because they think it will redicule their religious institutions which, I am sorry to inform you, are not very gay-friendly.

The reason homosexuals are not content with a "union" and want "marriage" is because they believe the word "union" degrades them as individuals and want full recognition.

So, here is my arguement against gay AND straight legal marriage: they don't need to exist.

Legal marriage does not give any benefit to society. A legal union is all that is needed and shouldn't even be due to sexual connection. Being able to pass inheritance or allow somebody to visit you in the hospital does NOT require any sexual connection. Most people don't know that marriage wasn't, in fact, connected at all to the state until the early 19th century and then it was passed to stop blacks from marrying whites. Yes, I am completely serious, look it up.

Every benefit attributed today to marriage (and not having kids, please seperate the two) can be easily transfered into a "union" contract that could be done between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man, a man and 2 women and so on. The religious people will not have a problem because it isn't "marriage". The homosexuals won't have a problem because...well, the religious people won't be "married" in the eyes of law and if somebody wants to go to a church/synagogues/ a nice bar in hawaii, bring some guy in a funny dress to say a few chants and call themselves married, it is their own god damn wish and nobody can and should stop them.

See? I told you that you would probably agree :3



edit: and of course, today's union IS lesser. For example, they can't adopt children. This would obviously not be an issue in the actual "union" I am proposing.

[Overdriven]

(click to show/hide)

well, couldn't resist any more. Here comes the wall o'text:

Yes, yes there is a proper arguement against gay marriage, and you probably agree with it. No, it isn't what you might think.

First of all, one must understand what "marriage" is. Marriage is two things. The first thing is the legal part. Marriage allows you to be able to pass your inheritance to your significant other, it allows them to visit you to the hospital, it allows you to buy the "family ticket" at the park and so on. It is NOT directly connected to ANY monetary benefits. These are connected to children exclusively, at least in Greece and as far as I know in the US too (else all would get married to get free cash).

The second part of the marriage is the whole religious thing. Yes, it exists. Marriage, in the western world (and gay marriage IS a western world issue) is directly connected to the christian church. Now, before you scream and -1, read on please. This is not the LEGAL part, however it is a deeply entrenched tradition.

The reason religious people are against gay marriage is because they think it will redicule their religious institutions which, I am sorry to inform you, are not very gay-friendly.

The reason homosexuals are not content with a "union" and want "marriage" is because they believe the word "union" degrades them as individuals and want full recognition.

So, here is my arguement against gay AND straight legal marriage: they don't need to exist.

Legal marriage does not give any benefit to society. A legal union is all that is needed and shouldn't even be due to sexual connection. Being able to pass inheritance or allow somebody to visit you in the hospital does NOT require any sexual connection. Most people don't know that gay marriage wasn't, in fact, connected at all to the state until the early 19th century and then it was passed to stop blacks from marrying whites. Yes, I am completely serious, look it up.

Every benefit attributed today to marriage (and not having kids, please seperate the two) can be easily transfered into a "union" contract that could be done between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man, a man and 2 women and so on. The religious people will not have a problem because it isn't "marriage". The homosexuals won't have a problem because...well, the religious people won't be "married" in the eyes of law and if somebody wants to go to a church/synagogues/ a nice bar in hawaii, bring some guy in a funny dress to say a few chants and call themselves married, it is their own god damn wish and nobody can and should stop them.

See? I told you that you would probably agree :3



edit: and of course, today's union IS lesser. For example, they can't adopt children. This would obviously not be an issue in the actual "union" I am proposing.

Have to say I think I actually agree with you on that point.

[Rhekimos]

Overpopulation is NOT a western problem. Bringing it forward as an arguement about something that will affect western countries EXLUSIVELY remains, I insist, silly.

I agree, as a general rule, overpopulation is not a hot issue in the western world, but I disagree on it being futile to discuss. Values in big culture exporters, like the USA, have an effect in various other countries as well. If we're to combat overpopulation we should export education and social security, so that people in poor countries won't have to have over ten children just to guarantee some care in their old age. If we do that, transferring values such as we're discussing now happens naturally.

More that there are psychological reasons for it occurring. As in it isn't inherent, not born 'gay'.  Which makes for interesting debate as to whether it's something brought on by an event in childhood or other such experiences. Perhaps for and against was the wrong term. I more specifically meant whether it is something purely natural and determined from the onset for whatever reason, or something that is brought on by experiences later on. Obviously that swerves into the dangerous territory of is it a mental condition (for example schizophrenia often occurs around the early 20's though it can be argued people have a pre-disposition towards it). But then any LGBT community I've ever spoken to will insist it's something that is in a sense pre-determined. It's them and that's how they were born which makes you wonder what determines that.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with any of this simply that it makes for interesting topic because of so many degrees of argument, religious ect.

Sexual development is natural, whether it's hetero or homosexual. Neither are a mental disease. It's part of being human.
Is when exactly does it happen important?

[Arathian]

I agree, as a general rule, overpopulation is not a hot issue in the western world, but I disagree on it being futile to discuss. Values in big culture exporters, like the USA, have an effect in various other countries as well. If we're to combat overpopulation we should export education and social security, so that people in poor countries won't have to have over ten children just to guarantee some care in their old age. If we do that, transferring values such as we're discussing now happens naturally.

Agreed

[Rhekimos]

(click to show/hide)

well, couldn't resist any more. Here comes the wall o'text:

Yes, yes there is a proper arguement against gay marriage, and you probably agree with it. No, it isn't what you might think.

First of all, one must understand what "marriage" is. Marriage is two things. The first thing is the legal part. Marriage allows you to be able to pass your inheritance to your significant other, it allows them to visit you to the hospital, it allows you to buy the "family ticket" at the park and so on. It is NOT directly connected to ANY monetary benefits. These are connected to children exclusively, at least in Greece and as far as I know in the US too (else all would get married to get free cash).

The second part of the marriage is the whole religious thing. Yes, it exists. Marriage, in the western world (and gay marriage IS a western world issue) is directly connected to the christian church. Now, before you scream and -1, read on please. This is not the LEGAL part, however it is a deeply entrenched tradition.

The reason religious people are against gay marriage is because they think it will redicule their religious institutions which, I am sorry to inform you, are not very gay-friendly.

The reason homosexuals are not content with a "union" and want "marriage" is because they believe the word "union" degrades them as individuals and want full recognition.

So, here is my arguement against gay AND straight legal marriage: they don't need to exist.

Legal marriage does not give any benefit to society. A legal union is all that is needed and shouldn't even be due to sexual connection. Being able to pass inheritance or allow somebody to visit you in the hospital does NOT require any sexual connection. Most people don't know that marriage wasn't, in fact, connected at all to the state until the early 19th century and then it was passed to stop blacks from marrying whites. Yes, I am completely serious, look it up.

Every benefit attributed today to marriage (and not having kids, please seperate the two) can be easily transfered into a "union" contract that could be done between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman, a man and a man, a man and 2 women and so on. The religious people will not have a problem because it isn't "marriage". The homosexuals won't have a problem because...well, the religious people won't be "married" in the eyes of law and if somebody wants to go to a church/synagogues/ a nice bar in hawaii, bring some guy in a funny dress to say a few chants and call themselves married, it is their own god damn wish and nobody can and should stop them.

See? I told you that you would probably agree :3



edit: and of course, today's union IS lesser. For example, they can't adopt children. This would obviously not be an issue in the actual "union" I am proposing.

This is what I already suggested earlier in this thread.

[Overdriven]

Sexual development is natural, whether it's hetero or homosexual. Neither are a mental disease. It's part of being human.
Is when exactly does it happen important?

That's your opinion. Not everyone would agree hence why it is a hotly contested issue.

Edit: Meant that specifically to the mental disease part. Obviously the development is natural. But then you can also argue that paedophilia is natural for some people and yet the age of consent is 16 or higher in many countries. Not that I'm necessarily trying to compare the two but the lines aren't necessarily 100% clear.

[Arathian]

This is what I already suggested earlier in this thread.

You are a smart man then!

[Rhekimos]

You are a smart man then!

Great minds and so on.

That's your opinion. Not everyone would agree hence why it is a hotly contested issue.

Well, so was the Earth being flat issue.

Edit: Meant that specifically to the mental disease part. Obviously the development is natural. But then you can also argue that paedophilia is natural for some people and yet the age of consent is 16 or higher in many countries. Not that I'm necessarily trying to compare the two but the lines aren't necessarily 100% clear.

Everything in nature is natural. Not everything in nature is good for you however. Just drinking too much of the life giving elixir, water, will kill you.

[Overdriven]

Actually also that is one major issue that arises with progressive liberalisation. At what point do things become socially acceptable. Paedophilia for example as we know it (sexual relations with anyone under the age of consent) was perfectly acceptable 100's years ago when there was no real age of consent because it wasn't an issue and still isn't in certain parts of the world. Why is it not acceptable now? What makes homosexuality any different? And homosexuality has been accepted/not accepted throughout history so it's not exactly a new thing that we currently support it (generalisation of course). What's to say that things which we find wrong now won't be perfectly acceptable in 100 years. Or the opposite. Nothing to say we won't become more conservative again. And from our point of view these things could be a mixed bag. Some can be considered good changes others bad by todays standards.

[Leshma]

So, in order to save glorious western civilization gay marriages should be banned? It that your solution?

Western civilization is dying because the way it works, not because of homosexuals. People don't want kids because they stay kids during their whole life, they don't want kids because they want to have successful career. They can't have kids because they don't have money to support them. They don't want their kids to live poor.

You can't blame gay people for that.

[Tomas_of_Miles]

I agree with Arathian's point about the separation of the legal union and declaring eternal love and dedication in front of a deity.

I do not think that anyone can come up with a good reason why gay couples should not be allowed to be legally bound to each other with the same rights as heterosexual couples, similarly with biological children and adopted children. If particular segments of religious authority wish to not recognise gay couples as eligible to be "married" in their eyes then either a) Gay couples will be forced to "marry" somewhere else or b) those "authorities" will be removed from state responsibilities after extensive lobbying.

[Leshma]

Discrimination is based on fear and those who discriminate are often weaker links.

Gay folks and immigrants have to work a lot harder than typical white heterosexual male born and raised in western countries. That's why they have better results and that's why "normal" people hate them.

[Arathian]

Discrimination is based on fear and those who discriminate are often weaker links.

Gay folks and immigrants have to work a lot harder than typical white heterosexual male born and raised in western countries. That's why they have better results and that's why "normal" people hate them.

No Leshma, no they don't. Stop being a moron. We were having such a nice discussion here.

[Germanicus]

Not recognized at a federal level, which is quite silly really. Actually, this whole debate is silly for reasons I will explain when I have my PC and not be forced to type on my iPhone.

i dont know how its in your racist state but here where i life its same as hetero mariages

[Arathian]

i dont know how its in your racist state but here where i life its same as hetero mariages

a) I am Greek
b) gays aren't a race you imbecile, you can't be racist against gays
c) FEDERAL level. Not state level. There is a big big difference, learn it. It is your own damn country.