410 replies to this topic

[Pompeii]

If that's milk and cheerios then yes I do.

 

I knew it.

[best]

I secretly hate happiness.

Don't hurt me.

 

I secretly hate happiness too  

 

You can hurt me 

[Sweeney]

Me and my dad had a circular argument over whether gay marriage was moral or not.
My dad's fundamental basis for his arguements was that marriage was designed for man and woman and should never be modified. Is this statement true?

Obviously that statement is not true.

[Keil]

Me and my dad had a circular argument over whether gay marriage was moral or not.
My dad's fundamental basis for his arguements was that marriage was designed for man and woman and should never be modified. Is this statement true?

 

I don't believe so the very least, not because of what people proclaim the definition of marriage is but because the unavoidable change in linguistic meaning behind words makes any argument whose basis rest solely on that matter so flimsy. The meaning behind marriage can easily change the more people begin to negotiate its meaning like what happened to the word "net" in the information era and 85% of the words in urbandictionary. 

[HiMyNameIsNick]

I don't really care.

Gay marriage is legal in Argentina and I don't see any gay couple on the street.

[Turnip]

Me and my dad had a circular argument over whether gay marriage was moral or not.
My dad's fundamental basis for his arguements was that marriage was designed for man and woman and should never be modified. Is this statement true?

 

What of course not What's immoral (and really fucking rude and awful) is not allowing two consenting adults who genuinely love each other to marry, basing the legitimacy of their relationship on nothing but their genders/sexual orientations ┐( ´ Д ` )┌ What's good about preventing certain people from marrying anyways? There isn't a single positive thing that comes from it hahah

[Rocket]

What of course not What's immoral (and really fucking rude and awful) is not allowing two consenting adults who genuinely love each other to marry, basing the legitimacy of their relationship on nothing but their genders/sexual orientations ┐( ´ Д ` )┌ What's good about preventing certain people from marrying anyways? There isn't a single positive thing that comes from it hahah

 

I pretty much wrote out the same thing you said, only you said it faster! Damn my fat slow fingers.

 

I also can't stand people who preach that the bible says marriage should only be between a man and a woman, the bible also says you shouldn't do a lot of things, and that its a sin, but these religious people are doing it every day (i.e sex before marriage, divorce, ect).

[Sweeney]

Thanks, I figured that. Why do you think this?

Because laws change. All the time.

[Vivillon]

I am gay, so the obvious answer would be yes

 

That being said, I believe those people who take a certain book for literal pull apart what benefits them and their views. 

Crustacean are "evil" but I seriously doubt any of those thumpers screech and yell about eating shrimp, and in my opinion 

it is hypocritical to scream about one thing and not the other but hey I'm just a gay guy ranting.

[Frizzle]

This is about how male and females were "designed" for in marriage, not really about the law may say right now.

Males and females weren't designed for anything. Marriage wasn't even designed for just men and women. It's a purely socially constructed concept that can be adapted and evolved to match society.

[Ali]

This is about how male and females were "designed" for in marriage, not really about the law may say right now.

Design implies a designer and the concept goes back too far to know the original union that sparked it all, so who can say the "designer's" intentions? Same sex unions go back thousands of years across multiple societies so I'm not sure where anyone gets the design argument from. The Romans outlawed same sex marriage in around 340AD (can't be bothered to go look up the exact date, but it's after the adoption of Christianity).

 

As Lee says, it's a social construct that adapts and evolves to society's needs at that time. For a long time it was considered necessary due to laws concerning a woman's (lack of) right to inheritance, ownership of property and the need for procreation of an heir due to the above. In a modern western society where we have surrogacy; adoption; the ability to leave our assets to anybody we choose, there's no requirement to protect anyone or anything by entering into a marriage. So if the reason we do it is purely choice then why should there be any reason against entering into it with anyone we like who has the capacity to do so?

 

My vows stated until death do us part. I'd argue that's a more integral component to the "design" of my marriage but we can get divorced for basically any reason we like under UK law.

[Galadriel]

Me and my dad had a circular argument over whether gay marriage was moral or not.
My dad's fundamental basis for his arguements was that marriage was designed for man and woman and should never be modified. Is this statement true?

 

Are you trolling?

[Sweeney]

This is about how male and females were "designed" for in marriage, not really about the law may say right now.

Marriage is a legal construct. Legal contructs are, practically by definition, mutable.
Heck, even the American Constitution has been modified and amended.

[Nymh]

Me and my dad had a circular argument over whether gay marriage was moral or not.
My dad's fundamental basis for his arguements was that marriage was designed for man and woman and should never be modified. Is this statement true?

 

Why does it matter if it's moral?  Laws aren't supposed to keep people from doing immoral things.  They're supposed to keep people from doing things that put themselves or other people in danger.  Besides some ignorant people's delicate sensibilities, no one will be harmed by a non gender binary marriage.

 

 

I pretty much wrote out the same thing you said, only you said it faster! Damn my fat slow fingers.

 

I also can't stand people who preach that the bible says marriage should only be between a man and a woman, the bible also says you shouldn't do a lot of things, and that its a sin, but these religious people are doing it every day (i.e sex before marriage, divorce, ect).

 

 

Relevant.  Ignore the melting frog at the end.

[Katya]

I support love. If two people love each other, independently of their gender, skin color, hair cut, size or weight and all of that secondary things, they should not be afraid of being happy and being part of a society.

 

One of the most supported "facts" by the people who are against gay marriage is the influence of them on children. They defend that a children raised by a gay couple will, in future, be gay.

Since all gays come from straight parents, I don't see how they can defend this point so firmly. From my point of view, only having straight parents can cause someone to be gay. (lol)

 

Jokes aside.

It's unrealistic and shows how little people know about society reactions towards something that, until few years ago, were wrongly considered an abnormality.

Societies change. Everyone who's not willing to accept those changes and evolute with their pairs, will, eventually, be extinguished.

And, for that matter, acceptance is different than similarity. You can accept someone without being equals to them, in fact, that's why the word acceptance is used; we don't need to acceppt what's familiar to us, right?

 

As far as the kids reactions and how they see homossexuality, obviously it depends on their parents to educate them to be tolerant, acceptant and respectful when facing the difference. A well educated child will be a much more balanced and a better adult.

We don't give enough credit to kids. Unlike adults, they can see past the things that can make their parents turn the heads to look twice to something we don't full understand/aren't willing to understand or accept.

And sometimes adults need to learn with their kids.

 

When my son started pre-school, some parents were shocked and even asked their kids to be transferred for other school because a gay couple had their son in the same class.

It was difficult to explain to our kid why some people would have something against the "boy with two dads". For him it was inconceivable that some adults -the ones who were supposed to teach and be inteligent- started to say such "bad things" about his dads friend.

 

Me and my husband never had any kind of conversation about different couples with our kids, because despite the fact that we know intimately some gay couples, we never made that distinction to our children. If any question was ever raised I'm pretty sure we explain that love can be shown in a variety of forms. A couple is when two people love each other.

 

That night, we found ourselves trying to explain to a pre-school kid that some people don't understand why others aren't like them.

At some point I remember him asking if the kids whose parents transferred them would be happy to know that their parents were "such a meanies" about that?!

The only concern my son had about the "boy with two dads" was how sad his friend would be if other parents would continue say bad things about him and their dads.

 

Me and my husband that night:

Spoiler

 

 

I'm sorry about any misspellings, bad used puctuation marks, and wrongly conjugated verbs.

Edited by athayde, 06 April 2014 - 11:38 AM.

[rapmasterme]

Why would anybody want to make marriage dependent on something unrelated, like sexual orientation? 

[soggytoast]

I like how I can't even browse a Neopets cheating site without seeing my rights debated.

 

Not that it's not a valuable debate to have (although how much a person's ideas will change from this thread is questionable), just that it's a prime example of the sort of oppression that the majority doesn't have to worry about. You would never see a poll on whether or not straight marriage should be abolished.

 

Edit: I use the term straight with the same informality that the OP uses "gay" - obv not all male-female marriages are between straight people, and not all m/m or f/f are completely homosexual couples.

Edited by soggytoast, 29 April 2014 - 11:23 AM.

[Haliax]

Not actively, but sure, why wouldn't I?

 

 

You would never see a poll on whether or not straight marriage should be abolished.

 

Not really the same.

Edited by Haliax, 29 April 2014 - 10:48 AM.

[soggytoast]

Not really the same.

 

You're correct, it's not - the discussion would probably be about the merits of the institution of marriage itself rather than whether or not its participants have some sort of "right" to partake in it. Which is exactly what I meant

[Cass]

I always find it so hard to grasp why people cant just "live and let live". Im a bisexual myself and although i am in a straight relationship at the moment I would, yes, definitely love to see gay marriage legal everywhere (its already legal in the Netherlands fortunately). 

 

The thing is, you dont have to agree with gays; sure, if you want to tell yourself youre such a f-ing saint and you follow all the rules of your book (applies to all religions) and therefore feel the need to point out gays are sinning in your beliefs, be my guest. Honestly, you dont have to agree with us/them/anybody. But why do people think they have the right to dictate other people's lives? What direct harm does it cause anybody if a man loves another man or a woman loves another woman? 

 

What, you think its gross to see men kissing in the streets? Yeah, well I think people with horse mouths are gross. We dont ban them from the streets.

 

As Ive seen many christians argue (and someone mentioned it here briefly), the Bible states that marriage is for a man and woman only. You know, marriage has been around before christianity started, so saying the government - politics, not religion - mustnt legalize gay marriage because your newbie religion (seriously if you put it to scale, you christian guys are pretty new here on earth) doesnt approve of it is pretty ridiculous.

 

Not raging on anybody in this topic by the way

 

Oh, I really only just noticed im not really using ' (like mustnt => mustn't), are people okay with that? Im a lazy writer on forums

Edited by cassiopeiic, 18 May 2014 - 03:50 AM.

[Padme]

Full support, any two adults who can understand what marriage is and satisfy the vows they make should be allowed to. 

 

Not supportive of a country which has states that allow children to get married, allows first cousins to get married and procreate, etc. 

 

After Prop 8 happened in California, a homosexual man sued the state saying that divorce should made illegal since it also ruins the sanctity of marriage.

 

If marriage is a right, it should be afforded to all adults. 

[Mai]

Marriage is just a concept society invented. The reasons for marriage and the consequences of marriage have changed over the ages. It's adaptable. 

 

I believe we live in an age where people should be free to follow their desires as long as they don't harm anyone. And if 2 people love eachother and want to call their relationship 'marriage', I believe they should be able to do so.

[Glitter]

Agreed. I don't care what anyone's book or religion says. I'm pretty sure the bible says divorce equals adultery. Hell.
Shrimp is unclean. Hell.
Having sex with your own wife on her period? Dirty. Hell.



Oh! And Murica. I can do what I want. Dammit. Land of the free. Separation of religion and state etc. marriage is a legal thing. Not religious. So unless you have proof gay marriage is a danger to anyone, you have no argument. Yay! Rant done.

Edited by Glitter, 20 May 2014 - 06:03 AM.

[stretch]

Lmao, marriage feels like such an old topic to actually debate about. I can't believe that people actively being against gay marriage is actually a thing in the 21st century, let alone 2014.