Gay Marriage: Pros & Cons

[amrtin77]

pediphilia is not consenting adults... its with children. inantimate objects cannot consent period. same with animals. that takes care of all that...

the real issues would be incest, and multiple spouses. now if they fix the people so that they cant have kids i could care less about the incest. and i see nothing wrong with having multiple spouses if they are all for it...

 

[bamthedoc]

Polygamy is the conglomeration of two words. Poly as in many and gamy as in "together" (marriage) means many together. You are thinking of pediphilia, I believe.

 

[amrtin77]

polygamy is somethnig truely debatable... it could be pure hell trying to figure out fair economical plans for 5, 6, 7 spouses. thats insane. and how would a relationship so unstable be fit to raise children? the more people involved in any type of relationship maeks it more and more unstable.

i really dont care if many people get married... but the cons seem to oughtweigh whatever pros there may be. and a 2 person relationship is much more stable than a group.

 

[Magikarp]

Sigh.. defending my Anti gay marriage position is so difficult =P. Democrats abound in these forums ^.^.

Induhvidual_1: 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.

Exactly. One of the main points of my post was that gay marriages will just lead into more disgusting things.


This entire gay marriage thing leads back to this controversial topic: The majority vs. the minority. The real question is.. how far does the majority have to go in order to meet the qualms of a minority?

I read an article recently in which a 400 lb passenger on a large airliner sued the airline company because the seat couldnt fit her. Hmm.. ok then, should this airline company pay thousands of dollars to completly redesign their airliners, new and old, in order to meet the gripes of a few extremely overweight passengers?

Think about it.

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

cxoli: So you're saying that homosexuals aren't attracted to the person they want to marry?

I was a bit reluctant about posting this viewpoint.. I tried to sound a bit apathetic about it. This may be true or false; I havent really made a decision on it yet. I was posting it merely to suggest another con to gay marriage.

cxoli: 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.

Now your just generalizing, cxoli =P. You dont think that abuse is going to exist in a gay relationship? Believe me, it can happen. Dont assume that it cant.

RoaCH Of DisCord: You see that anyway, or have you been living under a rock?

I have yet to see a gay couple in my town, or any other towns. Are you from San Francisco or something ?

RoaCH Of DisCord: 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?

It wasnt stupid. I just dont think that it was the best column of support for my argument.

RoaCH Of DisCord: Anyway, what's the point of not allowing it?

2 legit reasons: The social security issue (Which can be resolved, but I doubt it), and the fact that gay marriage is just the stepping stone for even worse things.

You cant cater to the minority forever. If you do, it results in the suffering of the majority, which in turn leads to bad things =P.

Oh, and bamthedoc brought up the religious issue. Christrians will be outraged if gay marriage is permitted, and who knows what could lead off from that.

 

[bamthedoc]

I opened a can of worms... I must appologize in advance.

 

[Magikarp]

LoL, well, personally, I am most grateful.. you see, I am rather alone in my Con endeavor, making my viewpoints frustrating to defend =P.

I R ConSeRvAtIve

 

[bamthedoc]

I am as well, but I'd prefer to preach the true conservitive view point of removing as much government from our lives as possible. That includes this issue, interestingly enough.

 

[amrtin77]

Originally posted by Rygon
Sigh.. defending my Anti gay marriage position is so difficult =P. Democrats abound in these forums ^.^.



Exactly. One of the main points of my post was that gay marriages will just lead into more disgusting things.


This entire gay marriage thing leads back to this controversial topic: The majority vs. the minority. The real question is.. how far does the majority have to go in order to meet the qualms of a minority?

I read an article recently in which a 400 lb passenger on a large airliner sued the airline company because the seat couldnt fit her. Hmm.. ok then, should this airline company pay thousands of dollars to completly redesign their airliners, new and old, in order to meet the gripes of a few extremely overweight passengers?

Think about it.

the majority does not have the right to opress the minority. they can decide laws, but they cant say "the majority can do this, but the minority cannot"

all men are created equal. if you give one person the right, everyone has that same right.

sueing for stupid little things IS dumb and pointless. sueing because you are not being treated the same ecomomically because of your sexual preferance is not a stupid little thing.

Now your just generalizing, cxoli =P. You dont think that abuse is going to exist in a gay relationship? Believe me, it can happen. Dont assume that it cant.

her point was that there are lpenty of homosexuals that can do a better job at raising kids than some of the heteros out there.

2 legit reasons: The social security issue (Which can be resolved, but I doubt it), and the fact that gay marriage is just the stepping stone for even worse things.

this will not change if homosexuals are abnned from marrying. it will only change if they are wiped off the face of the country. it aint gunna happen.

Oh, and bamthedoc brought up the religious issue. Christrians will be outraged if gay marriage is permitted, and who knows what could lead off from that.

let them be pissed.

btw im not a dem or republican

 

[Magikarp]

amrtin77: the majority does not have the right to opress the minority.

And vice versa!

amrtin77: all men are created equal.

Thats just a fabrication. Sure, we like to spout around and say it, but whats so equal about life? Equal oppurtunity? Bah. Not unless we produce everyone to be the same.

amrtin77: her point was that there are lpenty of homosexuals that can do a better job at raising kids than some of the heteros out there.

And vice versa!

amrtin77: this will not change if homosexuals are abnned from marrying

I assume your talking about my social security point. Of course it'll change. As long as the screwballs dont get married, I wont feel like a dumbass because I payed social security for two gay guys who didnt bother having children.

amrtin77: let them be pissed.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[amrtin77]

"And vice versa!"

i know this. but how are homosexuals in this case oppressing the majority AT ALL?



"Thats just a fabrication. Sure, we like to spout around and say it, but whats so equal about life? Equal oppurtunity? Bah. Not unless we produce everyone to be the same."

of course we are not created equal from birth, but we ARE equal in the laws eyes. at least thats what the term is supposed to mean. why repress people for being gay?


"And vice versa!"

whats your point. mine was that homosexuals can be just as good parents as anyone else. i take it your agreeing.


"I assume your talking about my social security point. Of course it'll change. As long as the screwballs dont get married, I wont feel like a dumbass because I payed social security for two gay guys who didnt bother having children."

you feeling like a dumbass has no ground in this debate. the social security is screwed already, we cant do much to help it. its not screwed because gays either, they put their money in just as much as we have.


"Be careful what you wish for."

my point is religion is no base for laws. not everyone is of the same religion, or religious at all.

 

[RoaCh of DisCord]

Originally posted by Rygon

I have yet to see a gay couple in my town, or any other towns. Are you from San Francisco or something ?

Nope, just a small boring town in washington. I've seen gays making out in public. Here, and other citys. Not too often, but it happens...in many places.

the fact that gay marriage is just the stepping stone for even worse things.

You can say that if you wish, but the truth is you say it only because you think of being gay as a "bad" thing. I don't...and so do many other people...and there are several valid reasons as to why it isn't a bad thing. The biggest one that I can see is that it's involving TWO CONSENTING ADULTS. I ****ing hate it when people relate homosexuality to pedofillia, or even worse. That is so way off it isn't even funny, and it's really sad that gays are thought of in such a degrading way. I don't see allowing such a thing as a "stepping stone for even worse things", because there is nothing wrong with being homosexual.

 

[Tempest Storm]

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

They're gonna do that whether their married or not. And I don't se you bitching about heteros doing it?

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.

There is a physical bond between the 2, and it's natural to them.

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.

Why? They've been paying for SS their whole two. They've had money taken from their paychecks to support other's retirement money. Why should they be denied when they're put ten's of thousands into SS?

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.

Unless you also support denying infertile/sterile.fixed ppl their benifits, then you're a hypocrite.

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.

Well, of course not all of them. But a good % are. If their wasn't the demand for it, it wouldn't be a big issue.

 

[Tempest Storm]

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."

Are you talking about the Romans, or the Spartans? And there are religions out there that do accept homosexuality. I.E., Wicca.

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.

The Unitarian Church has been a strong advocate for gay rights, and, IIRC, is willing to perform gay marriage.

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*

We're not forcing anyone to accept anything. But seeing as how the government gives over 1000 legal rights to married couples, they have the responsibility of recognizing gay marriage.

I have a big problem with homosexual couples "having" children. I have my reasons, and I'd rather not go into that.

Why do you have problems with them adopting?

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.

When have I ever ignored evidence that you've provided?

Sigh.. defending my Anti gay marriage position is so difficult =P. Democrats abound in these forums ^.^.

Just because we support equality doesn't mean we're dems.

Exactly. One of the main points of my post was that gay marriages will just lead into more disgusting things.

The "slippery slope" arguement is logical fallacy.

This entire gay marriage thing leads back to this controversial topic: The majority vs. the minority. The real question is.. how far does the majority have to go in order to meet the qualms of a minority?

I read an article recently in which a 400 lb passenger on a large airliner sued the airline company because the seat couldnt fit her. Hmm.. ok then, should this airline company pay thousands of dollars to completly redesign their airliners, new and old, in order to meet the gripes of a few extremely overweight passengers?

Think about it

Gays aren't asking for anything that they shouldn't allready have. Everyone should have the right to get married to the person they love. Any capable, responsible person should have the right to have and adopt children. It's not like they're imposing their lifesyles on you. Hell, gay marriage won't even effect you.

1.) 2 legit reasons: The social security issue (Which can be resolved, but I doubt it), and the fact that gay marriage is just the stepping stone for even worse things.

2.) You cant cater to the minority forever. If you do, it results in the suffering of the majority, which in turn leads to bad things =P.

3.) Oh, and bamthedoc brought up the religious issue. Christrians will be outraged if gay marriage is permitted, and who knows what could lead off from that.

1.) The SS issue isn't an issue. Gays are entitled to SS because they've been paying for it their whole lives. Simple as that. Your paranoid fears are not sufficient reason to deny somone their rights. Sorry.

2.) Yea, giving them equal rights is really catering to em.

3.) This isn't a democracy or a theocracy, this is a republic. A nation based of the notion of freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you let the Christian Taliban win this issue, whats next? Outlawwing abortion, contraceptives, pre-marital sex, oral sex? Not only that, but denying gay marriage for religious reasons violates a shitload of Admendments.

And vice versa!

How the **** does gay marriage oppress anyone? How the hell does it even affect you, or any other striaght person!

Thats just a fabrication. Sure, we like to spout around and say it, but whats so equal about life? Equal oppurtunity? Bah. Not unless we produce everyone to be the same.

Ppl are not creatd equal in real life, but all are equal under the law.

And vice versa! (in responce to gay adoption)

Eh? Do you even have an arguement, or are you just making this up as you go?

I assume your talking about my social security point. Of course it'll change. As long as the screwballs dont get married, I wont feel like a dumbass because I payed social security for two gay guys who didnt bother having children.

Hey, those gay are paying for your parents SS. Just because they didn't have kids, doesn't mean they should be screwed out of the tens of thousands of $ they put into it.

 

[cxoli]

Now your just generalizing, cxoli =P. You dont think that abuse is going to exist in a gay relationship? Believe me, it can happen. Dont assume that it cant.

What I'm saying is that homosexual couples aren't any less capable of raising children than heterosexual couples are.

I have yet to see a gay couple in my town, or any other towns. Are you from San Francisco or something ?

I met my dad's homosexual friends when I lived in Hawaii, and they were two of the coolest people I had ever met.

You cant cater to the minority forever. If you do, it results in the suffering of the majority, which in turn leads to bad things =P.

My little sister had Down's Syndrome, meaning she's also a minority. Does that mean she doesn't deserve the same rights as everyone else? No. And if she gets those rights, does it mean I suffer or that it "leads to bad things"? No. On the contrary, I actually benefit. Government support means that we get more help taking care of her. And trust me, we need all the help we can get.

Oh, and bamthedoc brought up the religious issue. Christrians will be outraged if gay marriage is permitted, and who knows what could lead off from that.

You're making assumptions, and it annoys me. I'm Christian, my parents are Christian (my mom is a pastor), and my brother is Christian, and we all think gay marriage should be permitted.

 

[ORC-r0x0r-ROC]

And vice versa!

You stupid ****, how are gays oppresing the majority?

Thats just a fabrication. Sure, we like to spout around and say it, but whats so equal about life? Equal oppurtunity? Bah. Not unless we produce everyone to be the same

Your point, is it there?

And vice versa!

Again, is there a point? Gays tend to be more loving... Why would anyone go through the discrimination of having a gay lover if they wasn't "serious".

I assume your talking about my social security point. Of course it'll change. As long as the screwballs dont get married, I wont feel like a dumbass because I payed social security for two gay guys who didnt bother having children.

Many hetrosexuals don't have children and gays can adopt so are you saying that the santity of marriage can only be betowed on people whom are intent on having children.

2 legit reasons: The social security issue (Which can be resolved, but I doubt it), and the fact that gay marriage is just the stepping stone for even worse things

So you are saying a contract that binds 2 people together is a stepping stone for even worse things. You dolt.

Oh, and bamthedoc brought up the religious issue. Christrians will be outraged if gay marriage is permitted, and who knows what could lead off from that

Christians have jack shit to do with marriage. Marriage was there before christianity, I'm sure.

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.

Social security is ****ed up. So does every hetrosexual couple have to have children? If gays get married, it's going to cost, so they would be helping the economy. They ****ing work and pay taxes like everyone else.

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

Tell me where it says this and the bible was written by men not God, it was wrong by society then so it obvious why they would write such a thing. Who is to say God hates gays. I'm merely saying this from a religous point of view.

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*

Wtf. No gay is forcing people to accept them, Jesus what does a contract have to do with you. Wasting money? It would be getting rid of a law that stops gays from marrying.

I have a big problem with homosexual couples "having" children. I have my reasons, and I'd rather not go into that.

Like what?

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.

What facts? They haven't found a definite link between gay and genes yet. And the myth that they had has been proven incorrect.

Sigh.. defending my Anti gay marriage position is so difficult =P. Democrats abound in these forums ^.^.

I'm not a dem but I do believe in what is right. Another stupid Bush suporter I guess, no wonder why your arguments have been so pathetic. Bush = republican and he passed a law against gays and really pissed a load of gay rights organisations off.

2.) You cant cater to the minority forever. If you do, it results in the suffering of the majority, which in turn leads to bad things =P.

There not being catered and they should be treated like the majority, you sterotype all gays into one category and pass laws against them.

 

[Plumpamania]

Let me ask you all this....would you want to be adopted and raised by gays?

And if done at a young age how do you think you would have turned out so far?

 

[cxoli]

Let me ask you all this....would you want to be adopted and raised by gays?

I would gladly accept the opportunity to live with a gay couple for an indefinite amount of time. I think it would be a valuable learning experience. I love talking to people about their different views and ways of life because it allows me see things from a different perspective.

And if done at a young age how do you think you would have turned out so far?

If I had been adopted into such a family at a young age, assuming that the relationship was healthy, I would probably have turned out to be accepting and open-minded about people who have different lifestyles than I do. I would have been taught that it doesn't matter what your sexual orientation is, as long as your first priority is simply to treat everyone like a human being.

What do you know, I probably would have turned out with all the same beliefs I have right now. What was the point you were trying to make, exactly...?

 

[amrtin77]

hes one of the people who think gay parents will try to "convert their children" to be gay i think.. thats what he seems to be getting at to me. if anything gay parents would make kids m,ore accepting of different lifestyles. i wouldnt mind, it beats the hell out of an orphanage.

 

[Forged]

Rygon I don't think to many people on this bored are Democrats, I am not and I don't think armtin or RoD are either so there goes that argument. I am not sure how you got democrat out of anything anyone said....

Let me ask you all this....would you want to be adopted and raised by gays?

Or be passed around from foster home to foster home? I will take my gays please.

 

[RoaCh of DisCord]

I agree totally with forged. I don't see a problem with it.