Marriage and sexuality

[Kerr]

Hi all.

Since we started to hijack (*cough* understatement *cough*) the thread about homosexuality and choice and got a mod pointing that out, I decided to start a new thread about it.

So, about marriage, should only hetrosexuals be allowed to marry? Should not homosexuals be allowed to?

Does two hetrosexuals who hate each other and plan to sterilize themselves so that they cannot have kids have more right to marry then two homosexuals who actually love each other and plans to adopt a kid?

And what about asexuals?

And what is the purpose of marriage anyway?

I personally hold that it should not matter if you are homosexual, hetrosexual, asexual or whatever, you should be allowed to marry the person you love no matter what sex you or they are of. I also think marriage is about love and maybe making sure you are legally protected, and not about children.

Take care,
Kerr.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Being in Maine and having this issue in my face everyday now, this is something that I can't get out of my head, and I've heard all the arguments.

The thing is, none of the arguments against same-sex marriage make sense in any way except in upholding traditional gender roles that are being overturned anyway.

The "traditional marriage is good for society argument" is just about the worst attempt to disguise the real issue I've ever heard. Modern civilization is in no shortage of children or people to carry on the next generation. In fact, it seems we could lose a few billion and be better off!

I seriously see no reason to think that legalizing same-sex marriage will all of a sudden cause a reproductive standstill. Are the proponents of that argument suddenly going to go sterile?

If marriage is a religious term, then please strike it from law and give all couplings dealing with legal matters the term "civil union" in order to make it equal and maintain separation of Church and State. I say, however, it is now a secular term that all consenting adults should be able to enjoy.

 

[darkendless]

Marriage is a bond of love. Marriage should not be defined by what is religiously right or wrong.

Why this debate exists still is beyond me. Why is it so hard for Christianity in particular to allow people to be happy? Are they just that sad?

 

[Kerr]

I agree with both of you. The idea that people should not be able to marry when they love each other to the death because they happen to be of the same sex is insane.

 

[madhatter85]

I stated in the other thread that homosexuals have the capacity to reproduce. I merely pointed out that at a fundamental level homosexual urges do not coincide with sexual reproduction.

I also pointed out that in the case of Loving vs. Virginia the supreme court ruled marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival" This conflicts with homosexual urges as it is not fundamental to our existence and survival.

Homosexuals of course can marry any member of the opposite sex they wish if they desire to receive benefits of marriage.

 

[Kerr]

I stated in the other thread that homosexuals have the capacity to reproduce. I merely pointed out that at a fundamental level homosexual urges do not coincide with sexual reproduction.

And I have already pointed out that it does not stop them from getting kids.

I also pointed out that in the case of Loving vs. Virginia the supreme court ruled marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival" This conflicts with homosexual urges as it is not fundamental to our existence and survival.

Marriage is not about our survival, it is about love. Or should be, at last.

Homosexuals of course can marry any member of the opposite sex they wish if they desire to receive benefits of marriage.

Which is extremely insensitive and quite stupid to say to someone who is in love with someone of the same sex.

 

[blackout]

I also pointed out that in the case of Loving vs. Virginia the supreme court ruled marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival" This conflicts with homosexual urges as it is not fundamental to our existence and survival.

Oh what a load of BS.

Marriage is in no way fundamental to the existence and survival of the human race.

There are plenty of unmarried couples raising beautiful families,
and plenty of married couples with no kids at all.

The reproductive system really doesn't give a hoot weather you are married or whatever,
for conception to take place.

if everyone's legal marriage documents were ripped up an nullified tomorrow,
life would go on just the same.

 

[Kerr]

Oh what a load of BS.

Marriage is in no way fundamental to the existence and survival of the human race.

There are plenty of unmarried couples raising beautiful families,
and plenty of married couples with no kids at all.

The reproductive system really doesn't give a hoot weather you are married or whatever,
for conception to take place.

if everyone's legal marriage documents were ripped up an nullified tomorrow,
life would go on just the same.

Well, except for all the people getting upset over that they are no longer married, that is . But I agree, it wouldn´t effect the survival of the human race. Lets face it, we are not that easy to get rid of. If we where we would be dead a long time ago.

 

[YamiB.]

I stated in the other thread that homosexuals have the capacity to reproduce. I merely pointed out that at a fundamental level homosexual urges do not coincide with sexual reproduction.

I also pointed out that in the case of Loving vs. Virginia the supreme court ruled marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival" This conflicts with homosexual urges as it is not fundamental to our existence and survival.

Homosexuals of course can marry any member of the opposite sex they wish if they desire to receive benefits of marriage.

You still haven't clarified why infertile people should be able to marry while a same-sex couple should not.

Also your assertion that homosexuals should marry people of the opposite sex is extremely insulting and harmful.

 

[madhatter85]

Oh what a load of BS.

Marriage is in no way fundamental to the existence and survival of the human race.

According to the supreme court it is.

 

[madhatter85]

And I have already pointed out that it does not stop them from getting kids.

Kids which were created through sexual reproduction

Marriage is not about our survival, it is about love. Or should be, at last.

According to the supreme court it is fundamental to our existence and survival. do you disagree with the supreme court ruling?

 

[Kerr]

Kids which were created through sexual reproduction

Which has nothing to do with them being homosexual.

According to the supreme court it is fundamental to our existence and survival. do you disagree with the supreme court ruling?

That it is a survival thing, yes. It has another roll.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Kids which were created through sexual reproduction

According to the supreme court it is fundamental to our existence and survival. do you disagree with the supreme court ruling?

I do. Marriage would have no effect on the sexual reproduction of humans. Would you say that legalizing gay marriage is going to cause heterosexuals to stop having kids?

 

[Sunstone]

Would you say that legalizing gay marriage is going to cause heterosexuals to stop having kids?

No. But that's not the point. The point is that only by having an out group can I really believe I'm cool. And I'm cool because I'm not them. Hell yeah I beat my wife and my kids don't love me -- but at least I'm not a member of the out group.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

No. But that's not the point. The point is that only by having an out group can I really believe I'm cool. And I'm cool because I'm not them. Hell yeah I beat my wife and my kids don't love me -- but at least I'm not a member of the out group.

That's the frightening thing. It appears to be a case of ignoring real problems over superficial social roles.

Also, it's an extremely weak and transparent cover; the human race is certainly not underpopulated, and our success in reproduction is becoming a major danger to us. (Ironically, our reproductive capability combined with our ability to adapt has become something of a handicap.)

 

[Smoke]

I stated in the other thread that homosexuals have the capacity to reproduce. I merely pointed out that at a fundamental level homosexual urges do not coincide with sexual reproduction.

I also pointed out that in the case of Loving vs. Virginia the supreme court ruled marriage "fundamental to our very existence and survival" This conflicts with homosexual urges as it is not fundamental to our existence and survival.

Kids which were created through sexual reproduction

According to the supreme court it is fundamental to our existence and survival. do you disagree with the supreme court ruling?

As I pointed out on another thread where you used this dishonest argument, the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia did not say that marriage is fundamental to our existence and survival, nor did it say anything whatsoever about reproduction. It said that basic civil rights are fundamental to our existence and survival.

Your obstinate lying about the decision, even after the lie has been pointed out, astounds me -- and it demonstrates your unfitness to be the arbiter of anybody else's morality, too.

 

[Venatoris]

Why do certain Christians think they own marriage? Marriage has existed in one form or another in every single culture around the world, independent of one another. It seems to me that it serves another purpose than procreation. It is a way to create diplomatic or financial ties between families. Arranged marriages are a good example of this. I dare anyone here to show me wedding vows that mention having children. Marriage is a declaration of fidelity, not a vow to procreate.

 

[madhatter85]

I do. Marriage would have no effect on the sexual reproduction of humans. Would you say that legalizing gay marriage is going to cause heterosexuals to stop having kids?

Nice, trying to make a straw man.

I for one happen to believe the supreme court ruling correct in the context they provided, that it is fundamental to our very existence and survival. As such, benefits were given to married couples as an investment in the future of our nation. homosexual unions are not an investment in the future of our nation.

 

[madhatter85]

As I pointed out on another thread where you used this dishonest argument, the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia did not say that marriage is fundamental to our existence and survival,

I highlighted your falsification for you.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. (Skinner v. Oklahoma)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia#Decision

Your obstinate lying about the decision, even after the lie has been pointed out, astounds me -- and it demonstrates your unfitness to be the arbiter of anybody else's morality, too.

#1, morality has nothing to do with this, It is the facts. #2 I cited the supreme court decision in the Loving Vs Virginia Case.

In the Skinner Vs Oklahoma trial they found that marriage and procreation go hand in hand.
Supreme Court Decision on Privacy: Skinner v. State of Oklahoma
Skinner v. Oklahoma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Smoke]

#1, morality has nothing to do with this

I think morality, or the lack of it, has a great deal to do with your persistent lying.

You can keep trying to wrench that sentence out of context, but you won't fool anyone except those who, like you, are eager to be fooled.