Traditional Marriage, Why It Matters, All Churches, Christians, Islam and Jews only please?

[Thanda]

Your marriage may still speak of the circle of life. If that is what gives your marriage meaning, that can be respected. In fact, I see that as quite beautiful. But that has only to do with your marriage and with those who share your wonderful view of marriage. It has nothing to do with anyone else's marriage; and neither do their marriages have anything to do with yours.



Gay couples are a family. Many are adopting and raising offspring. Some bring offspring from previous heterosexual encounters and include them in a family. There are many orphans and children worldwide who need better homes than what they currently have. They can find that home and find a family with two parents of the same gender. Or with a single parent. Or with heterosexual barren parents. Or with heterosexual "traditionally married" parents who wish to give a child opportunities they wouldn't ordinarily have had.



That's not marriage. That is procreation.



Each celebration took place for different reasons. As an example, an "arranged marriage" between Dark Ages/Middle Ages civilizations sealed agreements of ending wars, cease fires and alliances. So the belief that the celebrations were always about the married couple may not always be accurate.



Maybe they have good reason. Maybe one is emotionally challenged and they don't feel they would be good parents. Maybe their society is troubled to the point that they don't wish to bring children into the hardship. Maybe they believe that their financial resources are inadequate to give a child the future they deserve. Maybe one or the other carries a genetic defect that they don't want to risk passing on to a child. There are many reasons why a couple would choose to not have children. Maybe some of these reasons are actually selflessness, instead of the selfishness you perceive them to be.



But even in places where it's not considered a "crime", it is still considered "immoral".



In many societies, the spouses decide for themselves what each other's duties to each other are. While this may not fit with tradition, this may have a beauty of its own.



This is because of misogyny and concerns of domestic abuse. It may not be an entirely different thing.



I fail to see how my hypothetical (sadly nonexistent) same sex marriage devalues your marriage; which you have described to me to have a stunning depth and beauty of its own. My own marriage -- the commitment between two people who wish to be partners and see each other through the joys and pains of life to the very end; regardless of and blind to gender; has its own unique value that is separate and a non-statement on the value of your marriage.

That gay people can act as care givers to children is admirable. But their relationship to each other doesn't continue the circle of life. Therefore their relationship to each other doesn't have the same inherent value that most heterosexual relationships would have. Therefore I personally feel they are of inferior value inherently. Likewise single parent families are inherently inferior. Statistics show this. Yes they can be assisted by government grants and other interventions, but inherently they are inferior.

Adding an inferior product to the mix dissolves and weakens the initial product. Marriage is weakened by the inclusion of same sex marriage

 

[Ingledsva]

That gay people can act as care givers to children is admirable. But their relationship to each other doesn't continue the circle of life. Therefore their relationship to each other doesn't have the same inherent value that most heterosexual relationships would have. Therefore I personally feel they are of inferior value inherently. Likewise single parent families are inherently inferior. Statistics show this. Yes they can be assisted by government grants and other interventions, but inherently they are inferior.

Adding an inferior product to the mix dissolves and weakens the initial product. Marriage is weakened by the inclusion of same sex marriage

BULL! That is like saying people whom can't have children are not part of the circle of life.

What about all the heterosexuals that adopt?

What about people whom lose their children before they pop out grandchildren?

The idea that the circle of life is only a continuous line of heterosexuals popping out babies - is ridiculous.

Life has death and adoption.

Also the idea that Gay and single parent families are automatically inferior is also ridiculous.

Poverty and problems hit both single and two parent families.

*

 

[Thanda]

First off, the most glaring problem here is that you mistakenly think people don't regard infidelity as bad, which I'd say is completely the opposite of what is considered general morality. Taking pop culture in America is no better than people generalizing Africans because of bad info.

Just because people don't have children doesn't mean they don't want them entirely, There are economic factors to consider, which is a strong reason whythere's less children in America,. Japan's birth rate is a whole other thing and I don't think it has anything to do with no fault divorce, cheating is seen as bad and I don't believe they have gay marriage, so that already undermines your argument.

Your most glaring mistake is making assumptions. I did not say people don't think it is bad. I said it is no longer a crime. Marriage was once held in such high regard that adultery was outlawed. Then the law was removed but you could still file a civil suite. Now (at least in my country) the courts have decided it is longer valid to sue for Adultery. And yet you are allowed to sue your own spouse.

Having children is a choice based on priorities. If having children is very important to you, then few circumstances can prevent from having them and making the necessary sacrifices. If your career or holidays or free time is most important, then deciding to have children can become a big challenge.

 

[Thanda]

BULL! That is like saying people whom can't have children are not part of the circle of life.

What about all the heterosexuals that adopt?

What about people whom lose their children before they pop out grandchildren?

The idea that the circle of life is only a continuous line of heterosexuals popping out babies - is ridiculous.

Life has death and adoption.

Also the idea that Gay and single parent families are automatically inferior is also ridiculous.

Poverty and problems hit both single and two parent families.

*

Remember I said inherently. Marriage between a man and a woman doesn't inherently have the impossibility of having children with each other. Abnormalities cause the infertility. You're trying to compare an exception with a rule. It is an exception that some heterosexual couples can't have children. It is a rule that homosexual couples can't have children with each other. So if you consider having children a virtue then it stands to reason that gay marriage is inherently inferior.

Same with single parenthood. Two heads are better than one. That is a rule. There are exceptions to that of course. Poverty in single parent homes is a rule - far more than it is in two parent homes. Unless you can show that the rise in single parent families has contributed positively to your society you have to admit that single parent homes are inherently inferior to two parent homes.

 

[TheInfiniteLight]

The genitals are superficial, technically speaking, if we're talking about love in the deeper sense that doesn't judge based on that except because of general sexual orientation.

There is such a thing as male and female, the argument is that it doesn't strictly matter in regards to legal marriage

You should see the two as one. It's out of lust that you say there is such a thing as male and female. Lust that has been taught through the teaching of the world. The underlying reason why people are against same sex marriage is because they are lustful. Instead of seeing the two as one, they see them as male and female. They're lustful, therefore, they want to see the genitals because that is what they 'fall on' through their own marriages. That's the basic premise of their marriage is their genitals. Instead of realizing intimate love shared by two people or whatever, they see their own faults by looking at their own genitals and their partners genitals. They have effectively divided the sexes.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Remember I said inherently. Marriage between a man and a woman doesn't inherently have the impossibility of having children with each other. Abnormalities cause the infertility. You're trying to compare an exception with a rule. It is an exception that some heterosexual couples can't have children. It is a rule that homosexual couples can't have children with each other. So if you consider having children a virtue then it stands to reason that gay marriage is inherently inferior.

Same with single parenthood. Two heads are better than one. That is a rule. There are exceptions to that of course. Poverty in single parent homes is a rule - far more than it is in two parent homes. Unless you can show that the rise in single parent families has contributed positively to your society you have to admit that single parent homes are inherently inferior to two parent homes.

Infertility is a natural and biological process in female sexual health. First, during the fertility cycle itself, only a few days offer a phase of when ovulation occurs and a uterine lining begins to build for preparation for any conception that may happen.

Second, menopause.

This is a reason why the procreative model of sexuality and marriage is antiquated and more problematic than what it's worth to base legislation off of. It dismisses the human biological functions of the female population on the planet.

That is, assuming all unions are heterosexual from the start anyway.

 

[Marisa]

That gay people can act as care givers to children is admirable. But their relationship to each other doesn't continue the circle of life. Therefore their relationship to each other doesn't have the same inherent value that most heterosexual relationships would have. Therefore I personally feel they are of inferior value inherently. Likewise single parent families are inherently inferior. Statistics show this. Yes they can be assisted by government grants and other interventions, but inherently they are inferior.

Adding an inferior product to the mix dissolves and weakens the initial product. Marriage is weakened by the inclusion of same sex marriage

You are, of course, correct about statistics showing an advantage to kids from 2-parent households over single parent households. You cannot, of course, know this without also knowing that those same statistics show that it doesn't matter what the genitalia of those 2 parents are in relation to each other. Thank you for framing your comment as your opinion, it alerts the rest of us to the bigotry contained within said opinion.

 

[McBell]

Norman: I don't think it was done illegally, since when did same sex marriage become a new human right? You call others including myself homophobic, isn't that term getting worn out?

The reason the Supreme Court is looking into the same sex marriage bans is because their legality is in question.
Now seeing as there has not been presented a single legitimate legal reason to ban same sex marriage that would not also apply to opposite sex marriage, what do you think the Supreme Court is going to say about all the illegal same sex marriage bans?

If you are tired of hearing the term homophobic, stop going to such great lengths to solicit the terms use.

 

[McBell]

How do you know they weren't married? Were you there?

How do you mean they were married? Were you there?

Kinda hurts you when the same question equally applies to your argument.

 

[McBell]

I fail to see how my hypothetical (sadly nonexistent) same sex marriage devalues your marriage; which you have described to me to have a stunning depth and beauty of its own. My own marriage -- the commitment between two people who wish to be partners and see each other through the joys and pains of life to the very end; regardless of and blind to gender; has its own unique value that is separate and a non-statement on the value of your marriage.

If your marriage "de-values" any one else's marriage, then their marriage wasn't worth a damn to begin with.

 

[McBell]

That gay people can act as care givers to children is admirable. But their relationship to each other doesn't continue the circle of life. Therefore their relationship to each other doesn't have the same inherent value that most heterosexual relationships would have. Therefore I personally feel they are of inferior value inherently. Likewise single parent families are inherently inferior. Statistics show this. Yes they can be assisted by government grants and other interventions, but inherently they are inferior.

Adding an inferior product to the mix dissolves and weakens the initial product. Marriage is weakened by the inclusion of same sex marriage

This is nothing more than you counting the hits and ignoring the misses.

 

[McBell]

Remember I said inherently.

One wonders what magical properties you think the word "inherently" possesses.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Remember I said inherently. Marriage between a man and a woman doesn't inherently have the impossibility of having children with each other. Abnormalities cause the infertility.

Actually, no. People can become infertile for a variety of natural reasons, including menopause and ageing.

You're trying to compare an exception with a rule. It is an exception that some heterosexual couples can't have children. It is a rule that homosexual couples can't have children with each other.

Wrong. Homosexuals can have children, as they have access to all the same fertility and adoption services heterosexual couples have. So why is it okay for one to marry and not the other?

So if you consider having children a virtue then it stands to reason that gay marriage is inherently inferior.

Having children is not a virtue - raising them is, and homosexual couples are just as good and capable at doing that as heterosexual couples.

Same with single parenthood. Two heads are better than one. That is a rule. There are exceptions to that of course. Poverty in single parent homes is a rule - far more than it is in two parent homes. Unless you can show that the rise in single parent families has contributed positively to your society you have to admit that single parent homes are inherently inferior to two parent homes.

I would agree that two parents is ideal, but if you believe that then wouldn't gay marriage actually HELP children who don't have two parents (or any parents to begin with) be raised in a loving household with two parents?

 

[Thanda]

Infertility is a natural and biological process in female sexual health. First, during the fertility cycle itself, only a few days offer a phase of when ovulation occurs and a uterine lining begins to build for preparation for any conception that may happen.

Second, menopause.

This is a reason why the procreative model of sexuality and marriage is antiquated and more problematic than what it's worth to base legislation off of. It dismisses the human biological functions of the female population on the planet.

That is, assuming all unions are heterosexual from the start anyway.

Are you saying that since women spend part of their lives infertile - like before puberty that women are infertile beings? Wow! What a stretch - kudos for trying though.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Are you saying that since women spend part of their lives infertile - like before puberty that women are infertile beings? Wow! What a stretch - kudos for trying though.

No. I said women become infertile at various points of our lives. Read my post again where I point out exactly where.

I am experiencing peri menopause. I disagree that my marriage will become illegitimate because of my impending infertility.

Hence I submit your argument on the procreative model for marriage does not have a leg to stand on. It's based on archaic and ignorant biases against female sexual health.

 

[Debater Slayer]

The same tired, worn-out arguments against same-sex relationships. People keep repeating them as if they were sacred mantras, over and over again. It is getting old. Gay people don't have to procreate or raise children to have a loving relationship. Get over it. Many heterosexual couples don't have children either because they are infertile or because they simply don't want to. It doesn't make their loving relationships any less legitimate. If you don't understand why the same logic applies to homosexual relationships, then you had better remain silent on the issue until you are able to make informed comments about it.

Love is love. It has no gender, no sexual orientation, and no religion. It is not an exclusive commodity of anyone or any particular sexual orientation.

 

[Thanda]

Wrong. Homosexuals can have children, as they have access to all the same fertility and adoption services heterosexual couples have. So why is it okay for one to marry and not the other?

You of course completely ignored the part where I said "with each other".

Actually, no. People can become infertile for a variety of natural reasons, including menopause and ageing.

That people becoming infertile for natural reasons says nothing about my arguments. As a rule, marriages happen during child bearing ages. As a rule the couples in those marriage are fertile (we must remember not to equate infertility with just women, men can also be infertile). Are there exceptions to this? Of course. But like I said let us compare apples with apples, rules with rules and exceptions with exceptions (homosexuals are just as likely to be infertile as heterosexuals).

Having children is not a virtue - raising them is, and homosexual couples are just as good and capable at doing that as heterosexual couples.

Having children is a virtue as without having the it is impossible to raise them (which you admit is a virtue). Without having children the human race would die off. Since the human race continuing in a virtue, having children is a virtue.

 

[Thanda]

No. I said women become infertile at various points of our lives. Read my post again where I point out exactly where.

I am experiencing peri menopause. I disagree that my marriage will become illegitimate because of my impending infertility.

Hence I submit your argument on the procreative model for marriage does not have a leg to stand on. It's based on archaic and ignorant biases against female sexual health.

Who said anything about your marriage becoming illegitimate. I said a fertility in heterosexual couples is valuable because the can bring forth children. Those children need to be raised of their born. So the marriage continues to be of worth after that couple leaves their child bearing years - what would we do without grand parents!

Stop trying to side-step the issue. You know as well as I do that the vast majority of marriages happen during people's child bearing years (that more and more are happening outside this period as a result of divorce and delaying marriage is merely an indication that society has long been on the road to devaluing marriage). You know as well as I do that without heterosexual couple humanity would be in deep trouble. Therefore heterosexual couples have an inherent value that exceeds those of homosexual couple.

 

[Thanda]

One wonders what magical properties you think the word "inherently" possesses

Inherently means in and of itself, without outside intervention.

 

[Thanda]

The same tired, worn-out arguments against same-sex relationships. People keep repeating them as if they were sacred mantras, over and over again. It is getting old. Gay people don't have to procreate or raise children to have a loving relationship. Get over it. Many heterosexual couples don't have children either because they are infertile or because they simply don't want to. It doesn't make their loving relationships any less legitimate. If you don't understand why the same logic applies to homosexual relationships, then you had better remain silent on the issue until you are able to make informed comments about it.

Love is love. It has no gender, no sexual orientation, and no religion. It is not an exclusive commodity of anyone or any particular sexual orientation.

If you believe marriage is mainly about love then I understand the position that you take. But you will note that in all my arguments I have not once mentioned the word love. Indeed, I am of the opinion that the close association of the worth and purpose of marriage with romantic love has also contributed to the devaluation of marriage. A young couple may well ask, "If marriage is about love then why should we get married? We already love each other. Marriage won't make us love each other more. So what is the point?". It can be easily observed that many couple have already asked themselves these sort of questions and it has contributed to the rise of co-habitation.