Gay Marriage: Pros & Cons

[Magikarp]

Social Security is going bankrupt largely because the white race isnt producing enough offspring to rejuvinate itself. Social Security runs off the idea that, say, you have a mother and a father who have two kids. These two kids pay become adults and pay the social security tax to help the two parents, now old and decrepit, retire. The cycle then repeats itself.

Gay couples will be receiving the benefits of a marriage and my money so they can retire! But they dont care about having any offspring, theyll just let the heterosexual community go through the difficult process of raising children.

 

[amrtin77]

what? you pay for your own social security... im pretty sure. maybe im wrong about social security. ill research it. be back soon with a response


EDIT:

OK social security works the way i thought it did.. well not quite, i was educated a little myself. but my opinion stands. check this site out.

http://people.howstuffworks.com/question385.htm


you pay for it and it pays for retired people. when you retier people still working will pay for you so stay alive off of government funds.

even if you were correct in assuming your children directly pay for you (which your not...) whats wrong with gays adopting? theres plenty of children that need parents. and are you aganist married straight couples with no kids??

 

[Magikarp]

amrtin77: even if you were correct in assuming your children directly pay for you (which your not...)

What? I was the one who was supporting the idea that everyone pays the social security tax, which is accumulated into a giant fund, then distributed evenly out among retiree's. I never said that my son would be paying EXACTLY for me. If thats what you meant.

As for the adopting thing, I dont think many gay couples will even bother.

 

[amrtin77]

sorry for the misinterpretation

ok, you know how social security works. so whats the problem then? should it be illegal to be married and not have kids? homosexual marraiges will NOT decrease the population of the united states. and will not kill social security. want to know why? right now gays are not marrying women and having kids. they are having homosexual relationships (simply not marraiges.) and they are collecting social security. without children. nothing will change. im sure plenty of gays will want the opportunity to raise children.

 

[Tempest Storm]

that is the the dumbest thing iv ever heard man! pleasure is what drives us to have sex which in turn keeps the race of humans alive. plz...... do think things through before u post

A.) You've contradicted yourself allready in this thread, thus showing that you're full of shit.

B.) If sex were simply about procreation, we'ld do it by instinct, like animals.

As for the social security thing, your arguement is flawed. By your logic, we shouldn't allow ppl who are sterile/infertile/fixed to get married. We shouldn't allow old ppl to get married. We shouldn't allow ppl who don't want to have kids to get married. And a lot of the benifits and things that come with marriage have nothing at all to do with children. Shared power of attorney, inherency rights, ect...

And actually, a lot of gay couples do want to adopt. Why do you think they're puching for it so hard. duh.

Is SS the only arguement you've got? I mean, come on, gimme something better than that.

 

[B)ushid(o]

So Rygon are you saying that everyone who wants to remain single should be forced to marry and have children or killed off? Some people don't want to marry or don't want children, like me.

I think gay marriages should be allowed. Will it affect YOU?

 

[x[311]x]

Originally posted by Static
lol... I dont see the problem. if two fags or lessies wanna get together thats their business and it should be allowed

Thats one of the problems right there..... Americans, and most other people are so closed minded... Fag is just another derogetory comment that adds to the hate and hesitation that the homosexual community has to deal with.
If people around the world were more open minded we wouldnt have the problem of the whole gay marriage problem.
You also know its bad when your president is so closed minded as to want to ban gay marriages... where is the freedom americans preach to other countries if 2 people who love eachother cant be together leagally?

 

[Magikarp]

B)ushid(O: I think gay marriages should be allowed. Will it affect YOU?

Yes. Having my child see two gay guys eating face while walking down a sidewalk will affect me.

x[311]x: You also know its bad when your president is so closed minded as to want to ban gay marriages... where is the freedom americans preach to other countries if 2 people who love eachother cant be together leagally?

Philosophically, it is said that real love cant be generated unless theres a natural physical bond between the two things. But thats beside the point.

You should learn that not everything in America is true, or what its promised to be.

Spike~: As for the social security thing, your arguement is flawed. By your logic, we shouldn't allow ppl who are sterile/infertile/fixed to get married. We shouldn't allow old ppl to get married

My argument isnt flawed. As long as you have the ability to create offspring, and none of the handicaps you mentioned exist with this person, then they should be obligated to having children if they want to receive their part of the social security funds.

So, I guess, if the gay community doesnt receive its retirment funds, Ill be satisfied. Gay people are different from those with handicaps: gay people still have the ability to engender children.

Spike~: And actually, a lot of gay couples do want to adopt. Why do you think they're puching for it so hard. duh.

No, not duh. A lot of gay couples are doing this either to be rebellious, or because they really do have feelings for each other. Not all of them are getting married for the sake of adopting. Maybe a small percentage.

Spike~: Is SS the only arguement you've got? I mean, come on, gimme something better than that.

So now Im obligated to constantly be against gay marriage? Its my responsibility to have more than one reason? Give me a break. Unlike some people, Im not debating here just for the sake of debating.

Ill glady accept gay marriages as long as they dont receive their retirement funds. That is my only argument, and I only need one argument.

 

[B)ushid(o]

Originally posted by: Rygon
Yes. Having my child see two gay guys eating face while walking down a sidewalk will affect me.

And that is bad how...? If it bothers you then just turn away.

Ill glady accept gay marriages as long as they dont receive their retirement funds. That is my only argument, and I only need one argument.

I'll be sure to remind you not to accept your social security if you end up having no children.

 

[Magikarp]

B)ushid(O: And that is bad how...? If it bothers you then just turn away.

Yea, but if I have a kid, I dont want him to see that crap -.-'

B)ushid(O: I'll be sure to remind you not to accept your social security if you end up having no children.

Exactly. Although, people shouldnt be reminded: it should be enforced.

Lets take this into another perspective: what are the pros about gay marriage? It just worsens the retirement situation. Sure, it satisfies a few liberals, but it does nothing to contribute to society or the quality of life.

 

[amrtin77]

it gives them the same rights as it gives us. i am for equality reegaurdless of of race/ sex/ sexual preferance.

why is letting your kid see 2 dudes kiss or 2 girls kiss any different than a guy and a girl?
maybe itll make the kid more open minded and more accepting of those people and thier lifestyle.


and if someone works al their life and pays for social security, why shouldnt they be eligible to retire off it? if you dont ever want to have kids then you should have to pay for other people's retirement while you get no benifit? thats horse shit.

 

[B)ushid(o]

Originally posted by Rygon
Yea, but if I have a kid, I dont want him to see that crap -.-'

Why not? Its the same thing as a man and a woman making out except with a man and man.

Lets take this into another perspective: what are the pros about gay marriage? It just worsens the retirement situation. Sure, it satisfies a few liberals, but it does nothing to contribute to society or the quality of life.

Less discrimination. Do you really want another situation in elementary or middle school where people insult each other by calling each other gay? Its just going to fuel more hatred towards homosexuals. I think its better if people grow up with less hatred towards homosexuals.

 

[Induhvidual_1]

I think there is little anyone can do about gay marriages. They are already happening. I for one, don't seem to care all that much but the most important thing people must realize is that allowing gay marriages will bring in "certain" complications as the threadstarter has suggested.

He jokingly suggested marriage with a dog.

He has already hinted at bigamy. and other versions of marriage...

If we allow gay marriages, do we allow bigamy. I mean it's marriage isn't it?

We will also consider marriage among family members.... which I think has already been done.... just some points that I wanted to point out.

 

[cxoli]

I don't understand at all the argument that homosexuals don't deserve the benefits of social security just because they can't have children. I don't want children, but that doesn't mean I shouldn't have the same rights as everyone else.

Philosophically, it is said that real love cant be generated unless theres a natural physical bond between the two things.

So you're saying that homosexuals aren't attracted to the person they want to marry? What do you think it means to be homosexual, anyway? You can't use the "it's not natural" argument because homosexuality occurs in nature, and it obviously occurs naturally in humans because, well, it's not like we're genetically engineering people to be homosexual.

Also, I'm interested to see which you think is a better, more healthy relationship:
1. An abusive heterosexual marriage where there is no love whatsover between the couple, or
2. A homosexual marriage where the couple is extremely loving.

Can you honestly say that the first is more fit to raise children?

So, as for the benefits of gay marriage. First of all, we would actually be following what we claim for once: Everyone is created equal. Also, these couples would be allowed to adopt, giving many children the opportunity to be raised by people who love them and love each other, regardless of sexual orientation. I really don't see a downside to having homes for more children.

Maybe allowing homosexual marriages would force people to accept them. Whether you're against these marriages or not, we're eventually going to have to allow them because homosexuals aren't just going to go away.

 

[RoaCh of DisCord]

Originally posted by Rygon
Yes. Having my child see two gay guys eating face while walking down a sidewalk will affect me.

Yeah okay...

You see that anyway, or have you been living under a rock? As long as there are gays, they will "eat face". Gay marriage won't change or affect that in any way at all. Don't like it? Too bad.

Philosophically, it is said that real love cant be generated unless theres a natural physical bond between the two things. But thats beside the point.

Yep it is beside the point, and was overall just a stupid comment. So let's all just ignore that comment and move on, shal we?

No, not duh. A lot of gay couples are doing this either to be rebellious, or because they really do have feelings for each other. Not all of them are getting married for the sake of adopting. Maybe a small percentage.

Their reason isn't any of our business, nor should it be. Just as a man and a women getting married. Who really cares? It isn't our life...and on the subject, I would say most are getting married because of the feelings they have for each other.

Ill glady accept gay marriages as long as they dont receive their retirement funds. That is my only argument, and I only need one argument.

It doesn't seem like you're gladly accepting anything of the topic. That's just stupid. Why shouldn't they get them?! I'm with amrtn on this, and for the same reason.

This entire gay marriage issue is getting beyond out of hand. If gays want to get married, let them. It isn't our business, and it isn't our right to hold them back. I believe in equal rights, not this descrimination bullshit. Overall, I honestly see no cons to gay marriage...and tons of pros. Anyway, what's the point of not allowing it? Because some of us our homophobes? Some of us can't grasp the concept of different preferences? Some of us are so ignorant that we feel the need to force our beliefs and practices on everyone else?

Also, I don't give a shit what the definition of marriage is. Change it. Fighting over such a thing is ridiculous, and 100% childish. Some people make me sick.

 

[Cert]

i, like everyone else, am starting to get upset at this whole gay marriage thing. years ago, people thought things like interraccial marriage was "not natural" and against moral code. they even wanted to pass a law saying that this mariage was illegal. now as we look back at it, we wonder, what was the big deal? sure it causes problems. everything leads to problems. interraccial marriage leads to things like difficulty when u need an organ transplant.
we also look at things like women's rights, where people viewed women as the people that should stay at home and cook and take care of the children only. but because of women's efforts, they changed this tradition.
what im trying to say here is... people in 20 years will look back on this era and say "wtf where they so worried about? its just gay marriage... whoopde****ingdo." we are making too much of a big deal out of something so small. gay people want to have a way to be legally united as one, and the only current way in through marriage. who cares what things like the dictionary say about what marriage is and isnt? its not like that is the bible on marriage; its just text, and can easily be changed.
one person said that they would not feel comfortable if their child say 2 gay ppl kissing in public. well i wouldnt want my child to see a man and a woman sucking each other's faces in public either. not that i want children or anything, but im just saying if i did. please, for the sake of all thats holy, let this issue go and let time run it's course on this issue! kthxbye

 

[bamthedoc]

I'm only here to comment really, and it appears TempestStorm caught that He also missed my point. I said that the goverment (federal, state, and local) has no business saying "yay" or "nay" to marriage. I, actually, was unaware of any religion that accepts homosexual marriage. That includes Roman Society. It was stricly forbidden for two men to marry, but, at the same time, it was stricly promoted for two men, not two women, to carry on a relationship to "destress" them from the "male/female" relationship as "females were incompitant of anything but seducing males and bearing children."

NOTE: I do not share the Roman's opinion.

I'm also one-hundred percent sure that no Christian cannon allows for homosexuality, at all. Homosexuality is considered a "five-stage" sin, and that's a little hard to explain.

1) the sinner (person) participates in a behavior contradictary to GOD law (natural law or "rules")
2) the sinner participates in above behavior with a group or another individual
3) the sinner accepts the behavior as "natural"
4) the sinner never acknowledges that behavior requires forgiveness
5) sinner continues behavior on regular basis

I'm not saying that the person should be hated, but, rather, that one must not force others to accept the behavior. It's true that I say that the government should stay out of it period, as passing a such law is a waste of money. *cough*prohibition*cough*

However, I'm also saying that the government has no right either way in the decision, period.

 

[aphextwin]

i highly disagree to gay marriage....... next thing you;ll notice...... they'll be marrying their dog, computer and couch..........

 

[amrtin77]

but the government gives tax cuts and such to married couples... should homosexuals be any different in the eyes of the government? i could care less what the church has to say. they can refuse to marry homosexuals all they want, but the government should have a way of giving homosexual couples legally united the same legal positions as hetero couples married in churches

the above is in response to bam
------------------------------------------
the below is to newbie


the difference between homosexual marraiges and couch/dog/tv whatever is a human can agree to the marraige. a dog/computer/couch cannot.

 

[bamthedoc]

I have a big problem with homosexual couples "having" children. I have my reasons, and I'd rather not go into that. As per tax cuts... I might be fine with that aspect as long as they do not extend to polygamy, already "outlawed", or stupid little things that people seem to want to predict:

Marriage to Animals
Marriage to Inanimate Objects

As I said, I was really just commenting for stuff for you guys to debate. I could care less about these types of arguements, really, because of the fact that all biological and scientific facts I introduce tend to be ignored. I've grown tired of that.