Marriage and sexuality

[dawny0826]

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.

I believe that civil union should be legal, across the board for consenting adults. Couples could then define and/or interpret "marriage" for themselves.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

Before posting on this I read the original post very carefully. There was no designation of where the homosexual marriages in question would be taking place. That means that all of the posts that refer to "The Supreme Court" are pointless. They are no different than posting with the defense of "But in my church..." Some people just need to open their eyes and see that there is a world to both sides of the blinders they wear. That point made...

My Gods and Goddesses married each other long before Christianity was even invented. Some of them even had homosexual sex long before Christianity was invented. That leaves two points of view in my book...

As far as homosexuality being acceptable religiously: Yes it is.

As far as homosexuality being acceptable to me personally: Yes it is.

The real question here is why anyone is against homosexual marriage. If your society accepts it that doesn't mean you will be required to divorce your wife and marry her brother instead. Live and let live. It does not affect you unless you make it affect you. Heterosexual people that fight about this remind me of someone trying to tell me how I should eat my meal at a restaurant. Just worry about your own plate and leave mine alone!

 

[YamiB.]

You are comparing apples to oranges. Homosexual couples are just as likely to be abusive as a heterosexual couple. However, Homosexuals have likely gone through more abuse than heterosexuals due to a number of reasons (bigotry, parental resentment, etc..) and therefore are more likely in general to be abusive (statistically). Also I am not just talking about physical abuse, I am talking about mental abuse.
Child abuse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
An abused child may grow up to be an abusive parent ( ther research using rats as animal mode...)

Are you aware that studies have found same-sex parents raise children just as well as opposite-sex parents?

 

[Autodidact]

You are comparing apples to oranges. Homosexual couples are just as likely to be abusive as a heterosexual couple. However, Homosexuals have likely gone through more abuse than heterosexuals due to a number of reasons (bigotry, parental resentment, etc..) and therefore are more likely in general to be abusive (statistically). Also I am not just talking about physical abuse, I am talking about mental abuse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse
An abused child may grow up to be an abusive parent ( ther research using rats as animal mode...)

Actually, same-sex couples are less likely to be abusive for the obvious, dramatic, significant reason that same-sex couples do not have unwanted, unplanned for children, which is very common for heterosexuals. These are the children who become abused or neglected. This doesn't happen to gay people. Biology.

 

[madhatter85]

Are you aware that studies have found same-sex parents raise children just as well as opposite-sex parents?

Not only is it completely irrelevant to the conversation, (This is about marriage and sexuality) Depending on which bias study you read some say they parent children as well, some say they don't.

 

[Autodidact]

Not only is it completely irrelevant to the conversation, (This is about marriage and sexuality) Depending on which bias study you read some say they parent children as well, some say they don't.

False. If anyone is interested I will cite the leading studies, the meta-studies and the conclusions of every child welfare organization in the country that children of same-sex couples do as well as children of different-sex couples. madhatter would not be able to produce a single study that compares same-sex parents to different-sex parents and cite a result that the children do not do as well. Liars like Focus on the Family cite studies of divorced heterosexuals, pointing out that those children do not do as well as non-divorced. Duh. Also irrelevant. If he didn't have me on ignore, I would challenge him to show us the research in support of his claim, because it doesn't exist.

 

[madhatter85]

One, you misunderstood what I was saying. An investment in a loving couple is a better investment, regardless of if they are of the same or opposite sex, then investment in an abusive couple.

Of course there are going to be parents who are irresponsible and unloving, However, this is not normal either and which is why we have a system in place to remove children from abusive homes.

Secondly, you are just making my point for me when you talk about the abused getting the abuser. That is a very strong reason to invest in tolerance and acceptance, to invest in accepting homosexuality as a natural and acceptable behaviour.

However it is not a natural or normal behavior as i have expressed in previous posts.

Third, I have heard of a lot of hetrosexuals abusing their kids, but so far no one has been homosexual. Granted, there are less homosexual couples because, well, they are a minority, but the majority of all the child abuse still comes from hetrosexual parents.

Non Sequitur. You just said the majority stems from heterosexual parents because homosexual couples are a minority and there is even a greater minority of them who want to or eve qualify to adopt a child so the data would be on a relatively small scale.

 

[Autodidact]

Of course there are going to be parents who are irresponsible and unloving, However, this is not normal either and which is why we have a system in place to remove children from abusive homes.

Actually it's common.

 

[YamiB.]

Not only is it completely irrelevant to the conversation, (This is about marriage and sexuality) Depending on which bias study you read some say they parent children as well, some say they don't.

I wasn't the one who claimed that homosexuals are more likely to be abusive.

As for the actual topic I'd like it if you would reply to the contradictions I raised in your position in my previous posts.

I'll copy and past the main simple points here for your convenience.

1. If marriage is only about making children through sexual intercourse of the two married individuals what is the point for infertile people to get married?
2. Is it a choice to become married to a person who is infertile? If so how is this different from people who could have children choosing to couple with a person of the same-sex based on their innate sexuality?

 

[madhatter85]

If marriage is an investment it is a very flawed investment.

The Supreme court begs to differ.

But then again, I do not consider it a nation investment, or even of national interest. If it is an investment in anything it is in the future of the individuals involved.

Again, the Supreme court begs to differ.

Well that is good. What benifits do you think they should have and not have then?

You misunderstood what i was saying.

Hospital visitation privileges are flawed in general. When I was engaged to my now wife, If something had happened to her I would not have been able to see her because I was not legally married to her even though i was in a committed relationship. This same dilemma affects everyone regardless of their sexual orientation.

 

[madhatter85]

1. If marriage is only about making children through sexual intercourse of the two married individuals what is the point for infertile people to get married?
2. Is it a choice to become married to a person who is infertile? If so how is this different from people who could have children choosing to couple with a person of the same-sex based on their innate sexuality?

I have already responded to these.
Infertility is not behavioral and cannot compare to homosexuality. Infertility is not a behavior someone is compelled to do. Your argument is thus irrelevant.

 

[Kerr]

Of course there are going to be parents who are irresponsible and unloving, However, this is not normal either and which is why we have a system in place to remove children from abusive homes.

Which has nothing to do with marriage.

However it is not a natural or normal behavior as i have expressed in previous posts.

It is natural, anything that exist in nature, without being affected or added by something else like consious beings, is natural. And I avoided the word normal on purpose, you know. It is a term that springs from one of two directions. The most common one is the majority, the second on is about norms. Either one has no bearing with if something should be accepted or not, because the majority does not have to be right, and norms can be flawed.

Non Sequitur. You just said the majority stems from heterosexual parents because homosexual couples are a minority and there is even a greater minority of them who want to or eve qualify to adopt a child so the data would be on a relatively small scale.

My source is real world experience of someone who has worked with children for over 20 years, believe me, if anyone knows what she is talking about it is her.

 

[YamiB.]

I have already responded to these.
Infertility is not behavioral and cannot compare to homosexuality. Infertility is not a behavior someone is compelled to do. Your argument is thus irrelevant.

No actually you have not responded to them you continuously talk about infertility being behavioral and then ignore the actual situation I am talking about.

You have been saying that same-sex couples should be barred from marrying because they cannot have children this implies that having children is the point of being married. If it is the point of being married then why should people who can't have children do it? It's like taking a medicine you don't need.

Homosexuality is not a choice just like infertility so your logic fails on that level. If homosexuality is behavioral in that homosexuals choose to couple with somebody of the same sex due to their sexuality then coupling with somebody who is infertile is also a choice.

Is there a reason you refuse to actually address the points I have brought up to you over and over? Perhaps you can't come up with any decent response?

 

[Kerr]

The Supreme court begs to differ.


Again, the Supreme court begs to differ.

And I happen to disagree with the Supreme Court anyway, authority does not mean I should not think for myself.

But you did not understand me. I meant that an investments worth is based on the individuals worth more then it is based on their sexuality. Bad parents are bad parents, good parents are good parents. It is better to invest in good parents, even if they are homosexual it is always better to invest in good parents then in bad parents.

You misunderstood what i was saying.

Hospital visitation privileges are flawed in general. When I was engaged to my now wife, If something had happened to her I would not have been able to see her because I was not legally married to her even though i was in a committed relationship. This same dilemma affects everyone regardless of their sexual orientation.

I was never speaking of that. There are... advantages... legal advantages with getting married that provide a form of protection. It deals with what happens when someone dies and so on.

 

[madhatter85]

No actually you have not responded to them you continuously talk about infertility being behavioral and then ignore the actual situation I am talking about.

I said infertility is NOT behavioral

Homosexuality is not a choice just like infertility so your logic fails on that level.]If homosexuality is behavioral in that homosexuals choose to couple with somebody of the same sex due to their sexuality then coupling with somebody who is infertile is also a choice.

False, Homosexuals do not lose volition as to who they can reproduce with.
The infertile person loses volition as to reproduce at all.

Is there a reason you refuse to actually address the points I have brought up to you over and over? Perhaps you can't come up with any decent response?

I have addressed them and pointed out supreme court rulings. You just don't like the answers :banghead3:

 

[Kerr]

I said infertility is NOT behavioral

Must point out that to us who argue against you here, that does not matter.

 

[madhatter85]

And I happen to disagree with the Supreme Court anyway, authority does not mean I should not think for myself.

SSM pundits keep bringing up supreme court rulings and not showing their quotes in context. I am just bringing to light their own misunderstandings of court rulings.

But you did not understand me. I meant that an investments worth is based on the individuals worth more then it is based on their sexuality. Bad parents are bad parents, good parents are good parents. It is better to invest in good parents, even if they are homosexual it is always better to invest in good parents then in bad parents.

It is better to invest in heterosexual couples who are loving. There are plenty of loving and infertile couples who would, and do, adopt children who become victim of irresponsible parents or neglect/abuse.

I was never speaking of that. There are... advantages... legal advantages with getting married that provide a form of protection. It deals with what happens when someone dies and so on.

Wills can be put in place, living trusts, etc... they have access to all the same legal tools.

 

[YamiB.]

I said infertility is NOT behavioral

Yes, I apologize for making that typo.

False, Homosexuals do not lose volition as to who they can reproduce with.
The infertile person loses volition as to reproduce at all.

And again we're not talking about individuals we're talking about couples. You say that a person shouldn't be allowed to marry somebody if they choose a partner of the same-sex because they can't have children together. Yet you say that a person can choose to marry a person who is infertile therefore preventing them from having children.

I have addressed them and pointed out supreme court rulings. You just don't like the answers :banghead3:

What do the Supreme Court rulings have to do with inconsistencies and logical gaps in your own reasoning. And no you haven't addressed them. You still have not answered what reason there is for infertile couples to marry if the only reason for getting married is to have children. Do you think people should take actions with a reason? You've also still failed to address the fact that entering into a same-sex relationship is equivalent to entering into a relationship where only one person is infertile.

 

[enchanted_one1975]

I have addressed them and pointed out supreme court rulings. You just don't like the answers :banghead3:

The supreme court has nothing to do with this topic. I have already pointed this out in a previous post. It is no more the business of a panel of seven justices in one of the many countries of the world what I do in my bedroom as it is your business. Why not quote some bible verses now and tell us all how that applies to us because it is what you believe?

 

[madhatter85]

Must point out that to us who argue against you here, that does not matter.

But it does make all the difference in the world.

You cannot compare apples to oranges because they are not the same. Homosexuality is different from infertility, ethnicity, and gender on so many levels, yet SSM pundits forget these obvious facts.