Do you support marriage rights for homosexuals?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

i do understand your point 100%. lets see how much you understand mine.

islam says no to homosexuality nor gay marriage, if this was obeyed, then there wouldn't be any children in that situation.

Doesn't matter. You can't magically "poof" an "Islamic" arrangement into existence.

In any situation where same-sex marriage is legal, homosexuality is legal and will not be made illegal. Same for adoption by same-sex couples... and many people in same-sex couples have children from previous relationships.

Again, it doesn't matter that this isn't "Quran-approved"; you only get to choose between the options that actually exist.

moreover, why are you adding children to same sex marraige, everytime i've gone against homosexuality, i have always been told that same sex marraige/homosexuality is not about reproduction, it's just about feelings. but i guess the wind started blowing so the perspective changed direction.

I don't know who told you that, so I can't really speak to it.

so according to your statement, the authoraties are against the idea of being charitable to the children of the drug dealers that they arrest? is that what you are saying?

NOTE: I AM NOT COMPARING HOMOSEXUALITY TO DRUG DEALINGS. I AM JUST MAKING AN EXMAPLE OF THE SAME MESSAGE

First off, homosexuality is legal. The police don't arrest people for doing legal things.

And yes, arresting a drug dealer is somewhat uncharitable to the child of the drug dealer. You're taking a child's parent away from them. We need to make sure that this harm is outweighed by some larger benefit... in this case, the benefit of helping to rid society of harmful illegal drugs and the violence that goes with them.

So what's the benefit that goes along with banning same-sex marriage? It's not prevention of "sin", because homosexuality is still legal; the people involved are just as able to engage in "sinful" acts.

The only difference is in the things I touched on before, like protection for families and things that, IMO, are expressions of simple human decency.

Banning same-sex marriage won't make people any less gay; it may make them more unhappy, but it won't stop any of the "sin" you say you're worried about. Instead, you just make it easier for them to be victimized in all sorts of ways.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

God is such a great excuse for homophobia.

Most of the time this is true, though it is sad.

 

[LuisDantas]

i do understand your point 100%. lets see how much you understand mine.

islam says no to homosexuality nor gay marriage, if this was obeyed, then there wouldn't be any children in that situation.

What bugs me is that you apparently don't understand that homosexuality is not a choice. That must be why you talk about obedience.

It just doesn't work like that. Homosexuality is not rebelion, it is not disobedience. It is just how things work for some people. Homosexuals can repress their feelings and their behavior, but they can't choose not to be homosexual.

(For simplicity's sake I'm leaving aside the matter of bisexuality. Just take my word that homosexuality is not a choice, and can't possibly be done away. It will be with us forever and it is a matter of simple human decency to accept it as legitimate)

moreover, why are you adding children to same sex marraige, everytime i've gone against homosexuality, i have always been told that same sex marraige/homosexuality is not about reproduction, it's just about feelings. but i guess the wind started blowing so the perspective changed direction.

I can only guess, but it seems to me that you are talking about the rebuttal to the argument that homosexuals don't "need" to marry because marriage supposedly involves the desire to have children.

I know it may be difficult, but the acceptance of homosexuality is very much a basic civilian need. It won't do to treat them as lesser citizens just because they are homosexuals.

 

[Vendetta]

My argument against gay marriage:

For one, homosexuals shouldn't proceed with the idea that gay marriage specifically is strictly isolated. All marriages are restricted such as not marrying more than one spouse, marrying close blood relatives etc. Of course this is not an argument to say those types of unions are compatible to homosexual unions, but to show that marriage is heavily regulated.

Using the example of marrying a blood relative there is of course the obvious reason why there is a restriction such as genetic defects of offspring etc, but even if both blood relatives were sterile they still couldn't marry.

Homosexual unions do not serve state interest nor does it provide any incentives for the costly benefits it receives from the state. Although it may serve the state with respect to homosexuals who adopt but parenthood is not natural to everyone so it remains to be seen. From a sociological standpoint, when it comes to raising children it is of my opinion (and the opinion of other sociologist) children need to be raised in a two parent (male and female) household. But because there isn't enough research to make a conclusive opinion on the positives and negatives of gay parenting.
But it is mostly known that to bring up a child in a productive relationship he or she must be in an environment where both sexes, mother and father are present as the child is exposed to the personalities of both opposite sexes. Differences between men and women go far beyond the exterior portion of the body and so it is important for children to not only learn the physical aspects of male and female but also sociocultural aspects of both sexes. Essentially, a boy doesn't learn manhood from a lesbian relationship and girl doesn't learn womanhood from two gay male relationship. Gays are not bad parents however these unions do not provide the essentials of manhood and womanhood to children.

Some proponents of gay marriage call the prohibition to gay marriage comparable to interracial marriage. I reject this claim on the basis that procreation doesn't depend on race (remember procreation is a huge benefit to the state) and this is relevant since homosexual unions do not involve procreation.

The biggest problem with gay marriage that I see is the notion of sexual love, regardless of fecundity or ability to reproduce, is the basis of marriage. What makes gay love more essential than the love between five people? If gay activist want to be treated fairly then they must also be prepared to change the notion of marriage and the number of participants. Or what makes gay marriage more essential than marriage between two relatives? If equality is the basis of the gay activist then they have the burden of not only defining marriage and how the state can benefit as well as the burden of showing how gay marriage works without isolating other forms of unions.

 

[LuisDantas]

My argument against gay marriage:

For one, homosexuals shouldn't proceed with the idea that gay marriage specifically is strictly isolated. All marriages are restricted such as not marrying more than one spouse, marrying close blood relatives etc. Of course this is not an argument to say those types of unions are compatible to homosexual unions, but to show that marriage is heavily regulated.

Using the example of marrying a blood relative there is of course the obvious reason why there is a restriction such as genetic defects of offspring etc, but even if both blood relatives were sterile they still couldn't marry.

It is my understanding that the reasons for that don't apply to same-sex couples.

Homosexual unions do not serve state interest nor does it provide any incentives for the costly benefits it receives from the state. Although it may serve the state with respect to homosexuals who adopt but parenthood is not natural to everyone so it remains to be seen.

Wait, when did marriage become a matter of state interest? And who decided that having children is in the interest of the state?

From a sociological standpoint, when it comes to raising children it is of my opinion (and the opinion of other sociologist) children need to be raised in a two parent (male and female) household.

There are people with that opinion, sure. But what evidence does exist denies support to it.

I'll go a bit further and say that, in fact, a male-and-female couple is not enough to properly raise children. A diversity of adult references and role models is an absolute need for healthy upbringing, regardless of which specific genders the parents themselves happen to have.

But because there isn't enough research to make a conclusive opinion on the positives and negatives of gay parenting.

There are threads here in RF that may not be conclusive, but reference researches that point in the opposite direction: same sex couples seem to be in fact better child raisers then traditional nuclear families.

And really, why wouldn't they?

But it is mostly known that to bring up a child in a productive relationship he or she must be in an environment where both sexes, mother and father are present as the child is exposed to the personalities of both opposite sexes. Differences between men and women go far beyond the exterior portion of the body and so it is important for children to not only learn the physical aspects of male and female but also sociocultural aspects of both sexes. Essentially, a boy doesn't learn manhood from a lesbian relationship and girl doesn't learn womanhood from two gay male relationship. Gays are not bad parents however these unions do not provide the essentials of manhood and womanhood to children.

Unions that provide no role models other than the parents themselves are effectively prisons, however, and not to be accepted in any case.

Some proponents of gay marriage call the prohibition to gay marriage comparable to interracial marriage. I reject this claim on the basis that procreation doesn't depend on race (remember procreation is a huge benefit to the state) and this is relevant since homosexual unions do not involve procreation.

That is not really true. Homosexual unions do involve procreation often enough. Not that it should even matter, since there is no duty to procreate in a marriage.

The biggest problem with gay marriage that I see is the notion of sexual love, regardless of fecundity or ability to reproduce, is the basis of marriage. What makes gay love more essential than the love between five people? If gay activist want to be treated fairly then they must also be prepared to change the notion of marriage and the number of participants.

Actually, the basis of marriage would seem to me to be the desire to share a life together. Sexual love is almost always present, but it is not really necessary to justify a marriage.

Even leaving that aside, your argument is strange. Same sex marriage and poligamy are very different things. Why must they be supported together?

Still, leaving that aside as well, there is a greater need to support same sex marriage than poligamy, due to the simple facts that same sex couples are more numerous and suffer more from the lack of legal recognition for their desires.

Or what makes gay marriage more essential than marriage between two relatives?

For one thing, incest is psychologically unhealthy.

If equality is the basis of the gay activist then they have the burden of not only defining marriage and how the state can benefit as well as the burden of showing how gay marriage works without isolating other forms of unions.

Again, when did marriage become a duty to the state?

It seems to me that you are using a very unusual understanding of what a marriage should be.

 

[Vendetta]

It is my understanding that the reasons for that don't apply to same-sex couples.




Wait, when did marriage become a matter of state interest? And who decided that having children is in the interest of the state?




There are people with that opinion, sure. But what evidence does exist denies support to it.

I'll go a bit further and say that, in fact, a male-and-female couple is not enough to properly raise children. A diversity of adult references and role models is an absolute need for healthy upbringing, regardless of which specific genders the parents themselves happen to have.




There are threads here in RF that may not be conclusive, but reference researches that point in the opposite direction: same sex couples seem to be in fact better child raisers then traditional nuclear families.

And really, why wouldn't they?




Unions that provide no role models other than the parents themselves are effectively prisons, however, and not to be accepted in any case.




That is not really true. Homosexual unions do involve procreation often enough. Not that it should even matter, since there is no duty to procreate in a marriage.




Actually, the basis of marriage would seem to me to be the desire to share a life together. Sexual love is almost always present, but it is not really necessary to justify a marriage.

Even leaving that aside, your argument is strange. Same sex marriage and poligamy are very different things. Why must they be supported together?

Still, leaving that aside as well, there is a greater need to support same sex marriage than poligamy, due to the simple facts that same sex couples are more numerous and suffer more from the lack of legal recognition for their desires.




For one thing, incest is psychologically unhealthy.




Again, when did marriage become a duty to the state?

It seems to me that you are using a very unusual understanding of what a marriage should be.

Good response. I am at the naval base right now I will give you a lengthy response shortly

 

[Comet]

Yes... I just posted a new thread regarding some new events under "social-sex" area....

PS- This is from a WHITE MALE REPUBLICAN!

 

[Vendetta]

Mr Luis Dantas I hate that you went piece by piece as its hard to reply on an iphone but I will do my best to address your points ( I am still at base so I will do my best to accurately respond)

LuisDantes you will be in "quotes" and my response will follow:

"It is my understanding that the reasons for that don't apply to same sex couples"

Can you be more specific? It was a large paragraph so not sure which point were you addressing.

"When did marriage become a matter of state interest?"

All civil marriages are governed by the state as you know. Any tax benefits awarded thereof are interest of the state especially when two people benefit.

"Who said that having children is an interest of the state?"

Well its all economics and that is not my area, however from a sociologicsl standpoint children are a benfit to the state because of resource consumption. Children require nourishment and this require more spending. Having children is a benefit to the state and people.

"There are people with that opinion. But what evidence that exist denies support that?"

There latter portion didn't make sense to me but I assume you meant what evidence that exist which supports that notion? Before I could answer please clarify. However I will answer the subsequent paragraph.

As far as the claim that a male-female relationship is not enough and that more influences of a diverse background would suffice (I hope this is accurate as I didn't quote) I would go on to say that this is why you have extended family aside from the biological parents. Yes male female parents play a predominant role on the child's life however aunts, uncles, cousins can also play an important role as well. But if you are implying a polygamous union as a benefit to a child then we come to a dangerous enigma. However parenting at least in the immediate direct sense doesn't require more than two. Having different perspectives and influences on the child, or children is good, but there are consequences that can follow if we assume that more than two should have a direct role in the raising of the child.

As far as the assertion of the possibility that same sex couples are better parents well.....again there isn't enough research and going by anecdotal evidence is not sufficient to point to a valid conclusion. Same sex couples, like anyone else, can also be irresponsible, callous, and non-dependable as any couple but because we don't have a control group and enough samples to test a difference for now its a matter of opinion.

"Unions that provide no role models other than parents are [essentially] prisons, however, are not to be accepted."

True. But society is filled with role models. Look at police, fire fighters, political leaders, activist. Or were you defining role models from the familial sense?


You [Luis] argue that marriage should be defined on the basis of people willing to share a life together. However noble of a definition that may be, there are loop holes in how you see that. For one, why not have a brother who loves his first cousin marry if they both commit to a life together and agree to undergo sterilization? Simply saying that marriages ought to be defined as sharing a life together throgh mutual interest is not enough. It also involves an interest to the state/federal since once being married all items considered are mutual assets. Economist would argue in the best interest of the state gay marriage would be a valuable option only if gays are ablebto adopt. However if such is the case then you open up the possibility of polygamous couples adopting and then how do we explain guardianship? Remember the argument of gay activist is equality, and if the argument is simply equality this has to be cut across the board not just in the interest of gays (e.g. transsexuals, bisexuals, those with gender identity disorder).

You say same sex and polygamy aren't together however the point is if we are defining marriage as shared interest between consenting participants then why not have the same rule for multiple partners? Two women and a man are capable of loving each other as two gay men.

"Incest is psychologically unhealthy"

Ok for purposes of entertaining you let's say I agree with that notion, what of first cousins? In Arab culture its of the norm for one to marry their cousin depending on the closeness of the bloodline. If I have an affinity for my cousin why deny me that right yet allow two same sex couple to share in the benefit?

The understanding of marriage I am using is the economical argument not your average one.

 

[Gharib]

If my religion viewed Islam as a sin or a crime would I be justified in saying the horrific things you say about Gay people but with reference to your religion? If not, why?

aren't muslims and islam already labeled as terrorists and religion of hate?

France is a country protecting its national identity and forcing people who live in its country to integrate. A stupid decision but the point is your religion and its followers complain about an issue but then do the same thing you're complaining about on others. Do you see the hypocrisy?

actually, when muslims want to get married to more than 1 wife if we choose to, we are told it is against the law and are denied such a right. but when it comes to homosexuality then it's ok. Do you see the hypocrisy?

 

[Gharib]

Is there any concept on why it is wrong written in the Qu'ran?

this page explains it in great detail. you will see the full islamic perspective on homosexuality, it mentions some points that i didn't know about too.

Islam and Homosexuality

 

[LuisDantas]

aren't muslims and islam already labeled as terrorists and religion of hate?

By some. Do you think they should go unquestioned?

actually, when muslims want to get married to more than 1 wife if we choose to, we are told it is against the law and are denied such a right. but when it comes to homosexuality then it's ok. Do you see the hypocrisy?

No, not really. Muslim countries are free to establish their laws as they see fit, after all. And there rarely allegation that it is a sin to do as they want.

 

[Gharib]

By some. Do you think they should go unquestioned?

if islam is contrary to what they say, which it is, then muslims must defeat their arguments, which we have.

No, not really. Muslim countries are free to establish their laws as they see fit, after all. And there rarely allegation that it is a sin to do as they want.

i meant non-islamic countries. but if that doesn't work, then why is it allowed to go have sex and live with as many women as you want, which is illegal and a sin (islamically speaking) but when muslims want to get married and give the woman full rights we are denied that.

a couple that lives together unmarried means the woman not having full rights.

 

[darkendless]

aren't muslims and islam already labeled as terrorists and religion of hate?

Not necessarily. Often its better if they shut up and don't let fundamentalists make the rest of you look like fanatical maniacs.

actually, when muslims want to get married to more than 1 wife if we choose to, we are told it is against the law and are denied such a right. but when it comes to homosexuality then it's ok. Do you see the hypocrisy?

No. You can still marry one partner of your choosing. Don't be greedy now Eselam.

 

[LuisDantas]

if islam is contrary to what they say, which it is, then muslims must defeat their arguments, which we have.

I'd rather leave this particular point to another thread if you don't mind.

i meant non-islamic countries. but if that doesn't work, then why is it allowed to go have sex and live with as many women as you want, which is illegal and a sin (islamically speaking) but when muslims want to get married and give the woman full rights we are denied that.

I'm inclined to agree with you here. I would favor legalizing poligamy myself. Ultimately law is useless to make marriages work, anyway.

a couple that lives together unmarried means the woman not having full rights.

And it gets worse. Marriage isn't what is used to be. People have become way too focused in laws, supposed rights and money matters, the feelings and mutual support have fallen by the wayside.

 

[Gharib]

I'd rather leave this particular point to another thread if you don't mind.

works for me. has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

I'm inclined to agree with you here. I would favor legalizing poligamy myself. Ultimately law is useless to make marriages work, anyway.

marriage is not dependant on laws. unless injustice is done within the marriage.

And it gets worse. Marriage isn't what is used to be. People have become way too focused in laws, supposed rights and money matters, the feelings and mutual support have fallen by the wayside.

maybe darkendless has a different view on what i'm about to say but go speak to most australian men in their early-mid twenties about marriage and they will all say it's never going to happen. i've had ex-married and married men tell me that marriage is the biggest misake a man will make in his life. everyone is against it.

i feel sorry for the australians that have come to this point.

 

[McBell]

i'm afraid you've lost track of what you asked me.

Perhaps I did.
Let me go back and see...

muslims do not believe in 'climbing out of trees'.

Since when do you speak for all Muslims?

my bad, there could be muslims who are not well educated in islamic teachings regarding the matter and might believe in the ape to man theory, i should have said islam rather than muslims. thanks for pointing that out.

So instead of speaking for all Muslims, you claim to speak for all of Islam?

Interesting how your ego does not allow for you to be mistaken on anything Islam.
Perhaps you are the new Prophet?

Islam speaks for itself:

It is He who created you from clay and then decreed a term and a specified time [known] to Him; then [still] you are in dispute. [6:2]

And We did certainly create man out of clay from an altered black mud. [15:26]

Funny, those verses say absolutely nothing about marriage, same sex or otherwise, nor do they talk about you being in any kind of position to speak for all of Islam.

Care to try again?

i'm afraid you've lost track of what you asked me.

So, care to explain how those verses put you into a position to speak for all of Islam?
Or perhaps even how they connect with same sex marriage?
Or perhaps how those verses help answer any question asked in this thread?

Perhaps it would be an idea to explain just what question exactly you think those verses answer?

 

[McBell]

My argument against gay marriage:

For one, homosexuals shouldn't proceed with the idea that gay marriage specifically is strictly isolated. All marriages are restricted such as not marrying more than one spouse, marrying close blood relatives etc. Of course this is not an argument to say those types of unions are compatible to homosexual unions, but to show that marriage is heavily regulated.

Using the example of marrying a blood relative there is of course the obvious reason why there is a restriction such as genetic defects of offspring etc, but even if both blood relatives were sterile they still couldn't marry.

Homosexual unions do not serve state interest nor does it provide any incentives for the costly benefits it receives from the state. Although it may serve the state with respect to homosexuals who adopt but parenthood is not natural to everyone so it remains to be seen. From a sociological standpoint, when it comes to raising children it is of my opinion (and the opinion of other sociologist) children need to be raised in a two parent (male and female) household. But because there isn't enough research to make a conclusive opinion on the positives and negatives of gay parenting.
But it is mostly known that to bring up a child in a productive relationship he or she must be in an environment where both sexes, mother and father are present as the child is exposed to the personalities of both opposite sexes. Differences between men and women go far beyond the exterior portion of the body and so it is important for children to not only learn the physical aspects of male and female but also sociocultural aspects of both sexes. Essentially, a boy doesn't learn manhood from a lesbian relationship and girl doesn't learn womanhood from two gay male relationship. Gays are not bad parents however these unions do not provide the essentials of manhood and womanhood to children.

Some proponents of gay marriage call the prohibition to gay marriage comparable to interracial marriage. I reject this claim on the basis that procreation doesn't depend on race (remember procreation is a huge benefit to the state) and this is relevant since homosexual unions do not involve procreation.

The biggest problem with gay marriage that I see is the notion of sexual love, regardless of fecundity or ability to reproduce, is the basis of marriage. What makes gay love more essential than the love between five people? If gay activist want to be treated fairly then they must also be prepared to change the notion of marriage and the number of participants. Or what makes gay marriage more essential than marriage between two relatives? If equality is the basis of the gay activist then they have the burden of not only defining marriage and how the state can benefit as well as the burden of showing how gay marriage works without isolating other forms of unions.

Interesting.
Now what legitimate legal reason can you present that would allow the banning of same sex marriage but not opposite sex marriage?

You might claim not being able to produce children.
Problem here is infertile people.
Should they be banned from marrying as well?
I mean, if the legal reason for banning same sex marriage is the inability to have children, then the same would also need to apply to infertile people, right?
What of people who have a vasectomy/hysterectomy? They cannot produce children either.
And this is not even touching the fact that gays and lesbians can (and some even do) have children.

So what legitimate legal reason do you have to ban same sex marriage that will not also include opposite sex marriages?

 

[Vendetta]

Interesting.
Now what legitimate legal reason can you present that would allow the banning of same sex marriage but not opposite sex marriage?

You might claim not being able to produce children.
Problem here is infertile people.
Should they be banned from marrying as well?
I mean, if the legal reason for banning same sex marriage is the inability to have children, then the same would also need to apply to infertile people, right?
What of people who have a vasectomy/hysterectomy? They cannot produce children either.
And this is not even touching the fact that gays and lesbians can (and some even do) have children.

So what legitimate legal reason do you have to ban same sex marriage that will not also include opposite sex marriages?

First off let me remind you as devil's advocate, I am arguing from a secular economist standpoint. Since all civil marriages are regulated by the state we need to know to what interest does same sex couples provide to the state to receive costly benefits. I further argued that "traditional marriage" is considered a benefit to the state because of procreation and the consumption of costly resources to sustain the welfare of the child which is a costly endeavor, but the state and federal government does offer help which in turn is costly since it requires hundreds if not billions of dollars.

I understand marriage isn't always about having children but gay partners off no incentives to the state if they marry. Especially if both partners do not want to adopt. There is also no evidence to show that gay partners in transitional parenthood could match heterosexual traditional marriage. However you're implying that if gays can't have children then ban infertile people. No far from that.

I am saying that a gay male couple can adopt or provide sperm to a third party (female) who would be willing to give birth. Or a lesbian couple can use invetrofertilization to have a child. There are ways to have children however these processes are very expensive and everyone may not have the financial ability to have kids. Therefore it would only be logically feasible to say that the only interest for the state would be gay couples adopting.
But if the basis of gay activist is equality I am simply challenging that notion but citing examples of a cultural phenomena in some countries where people marry blood relatives. In majority of the states it is against the law to do so, however I argued earlier that if both parties agree to sterilization why deny then marriage? Or what about a group of five? If we are going to argue equality then gay marriage activist must argue why two and not five is more plausible.

 

[Draka]

Eselam, I'm wondering, do you really believe that all people in the world, in different countries, in different cultures, should be made to live by the rules of one particular religion? Your religion? Do you honestly think it is alright to force others who do not agree with your particular mythology to live by its rules and requirements? Have you no concept of being able to distinguish secular from religious when it comes to laws and rights? Do you not have the internal ability to realize that not everyone believes the same things religiously so equal and fair SECULAR laws must be in place? I have my own beliefs as well, but I realize that not everyone believes the same way I do, and that is ok. I also don't expect my personal religious beliefs to legally affect others. Can you not realize and do the same?

 

[darkendless]

maybe darkendless has a different view on what i'm about to say but go speak to most australian men in their early-mid twenties about marriage and they will all say it's never going to happen. i've had ex-married and married men tell me that marriage is the biggest misake a man will make in his life. everyone is against it.

i feel sorry for the australians that have come to this point.

Its sad but its because people don't think before they make a committment. These days people comitt earlier and earlier without considering the consequences of their actions.