Homosexual Marriage

[ironeagle]

Religous beliefs are perfectly suitable to explain the reasoning behind a persons opinion on gay marriage. It is a legitimate co topic to the one at hand. If we do not use our personal moral or religous believes or opinions what would we say to each other?

I just say if it doesn't effect anyone else who cares. I only don't like when children are involved. I am religous but see absolutley no threat to my religion or to marriage to allow gay marriage. Besides all they are doing is affirming their love and dedication to each other officially if you will. I may not agree with hommosexuallity, nor do I agree with it, but I can still make sense of what they are wanting and why. It doesn't prohibit the rights of others, so it shouldn't be unconstitutional. I see no reason any law should prohibit it.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: ironeagle Religous beliefs are perfectly suitable to explain the reasoning behind a persons opinion on gay marriage. It is a legitimate co topic to the one at hand. If we do not use our personal moral or religous believes or opinions what would we say to each other? I just say if it doesn't effect anyone else who cares. I only don't like when children are involved. I am religous but see absolutley no threat to my religion or to marriage to allow gay marriage. Besides all they are doing is affirming their love and dedication to each other officially if you will. I may not agree with hommosexuallity, nor do I agree with it, but I can still make sense of what they are wanting and why. It doesn't prohibit the rights of others, so it shouldn't be unconstitutional. I see no reason any law should prohibit it.

I agree, this is what an individual is made of. You can't take this away from someone because it's different from what you believe.

With homosexuality you have to believe there's nothing wrong with it, which is something society has determined, lately, for many years society frowned upon it, so who is right? Probably doesn't matter. As long as there are enough people to determine something is no longer harmful, that's all it takes, and the one's with opposing views just have to bite it. This has happened over the years with many things, it's how a society evolves. I'd say eventually most churches will go gay, because they are moneymaking operations, and if they see the tide is turning they'll have to go with the flow. Now some of the more orthodox one's may not do so as quickly, but eventually they will.

Next 50 to a hundred years, and everything that used to be sinful will change, except for murder and stealing.

[ironeagle]

I don't believe their is nothing wrong with it, I just don't see any harm to me or any others (except children in some cases) at this point in time. I am just fine with them being immoral in private because it doesn't effect me or others adn I let God deal with it. I do not have to agree with the act to support the right to make the choice to act that way or not.

[minorwork]

Quote by: ironeagle I don't believe their is nothing wrong with it, I just don't see any harm to me or any others (except children in some cases) at this point in time. I am just fine with them being immoral in private because it doesn't effect me or others adn I let God deal with it. I do not have to agree with the act to support the right to make the choice to act that way or not.

Noble indeed to support the right to make a choice when you choose to. Even though acknowledging an immoral act, now it is OK to have a choice. I, too, have a firm policy of flexibility.

[jb_1430]

I didnt read through the 300 + pages of posts but, no one is stopping anyone from getting married. Just go down to your local Church of Christ or similiar, progressive type church, look lovingly into each others eyes and say till death do we part, BAM, you are married. Even here in conservative baptist central Texas we have such churches. Now I suppose you are going to demand a license. Why would the government want to do that? Marriage is about procreation.

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. FindLaw | Cases and Codes

No matter how many times bill does john in the but, there isnt going to be any babies popping out. Government needs to have some reason before it decides to promote, license and regulate relationships between people. I just cant even imagine what purpose government would have in promoting such behavior..... other than just trying to help gays feel a little better about themselves, which is what I believe is behind these demands from gays for the right to marry. I feel self conscious about wacking off, but Im not going to demand a license from my local city hall to make me feel better.

[RickSp]

Quote by: jb_1430 Marriage is about procreation.

Excuse me? Marriage is a contract under civil law that addresses property ownership, and taxation. Child rearing is covered by other civil and criminal laws. The rights and responsibilities of having a child do not change whether you are married or not.

Straight and gay folks should have the same rights and responsibilities under the law.

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: jb_1430 I didnt read through the 300 + pages of posts but, no one is stopping anyone from getting married. Just go down to your local Church of Christ or similiar, progressive type church, look lovingly into each others eyes and say till death do we part, BAM, you are married. Even here in conservative baptist central Texas we have such churches. Now I suppose you are going to demand a license. Why would the government want to do that? Marriage is about procreation. No matter how many times bill does john in the but, there isnt going to be any babies popping out. Government needs to have some reason before it decides to promote, license and regulate relationships between people. I just cant even imagine what purpose government would have in promoting such behavior..... other than just trying to help gays feel a little better about themselves, which is what I believe is behind these demands from gays for the right to marry. I feel self conscious about wacking off, but Im not going to demand a license from my local city hall to make me feel better.

First off, in that little quote, it can be said that the two are separate. Sorry, but the way your argue, infertile couples couldn't marry. They can, so therefore couples that will not produce offspring between the two are available. Also, not all gays are men, and of those who are, not all have anal sex.

[minorwork]

jb_1430,
You're quoting a eugenics law case? Wuffo? Social engineering demo?

Nation building social engineering would promote reproduction and larger families in order to increase population. As the population swells to non-sustainable levels the tendency will be to discourage reproduction. The ways this is done vary. Tax laws and social contracts that confer civil rights will be adjusted accordingly.

Social engineering is not applicable for all of humanity's ills. Laws promoting home ownership, for example. An experiment gone awry.

[jb_1430]

Quote by: RickSp Excuse me? Marriage is a contract under civil law that addresses property ownership, and taxation. Child rearing is covered by other civil and criminal laws. The rights and responsibilities of having a child do not change whether you are married or not. Straight and gay folks should have the same rights and responsibilities under the law.

Gays are free to create any contract they like between each other. What the hell would be the purpose of giving someone a tax break because they promise to take only one hard one up the ass? The spouse of a woman is presumed to be the biological parent of any child she bares. Doesnt make a whole hell of a lot of sense in the case of two lesbians. Anyone of any orientation has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

[jb_1430]

Quote by: minorwork jb_1430,You\'re quoting a eugenics law case? Wuffo? Social engineering demo.

Im quoting the first supreme court case that established marriage as a Constitutional right. The same precedent that was cited in Loving v Virginia to strike down laws prohibiting inter racial marriages as unconstitutional.

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

The Human race will survive with or without gay sex or me wacking off. Neither activity requires government regulation or licensing and certainly the government has no business promoting either.

[ShadowFox]

Actually, Marriage is not required in order to survive.

As i have stated before, procreation is not a requirement for marriage. Neither is marriage a requirement of procreation. The two can exist separate from each other. This may bother you but it's still a fact. So, since we aren't going to refuse infertile couples a marriage license, we shouldn't try to deny a same sex couple a marriage license on the basis of procreation.

[jb_1430]

Quote by: ShadowFox First off, in that little quote, it can be said that the two are separate. Sorry, but the way your argue, infertile couples couldn\'t marry. They can, so therefore couples that will not produce offspring between the two are available. Also, not all gays are men, and of those who are, not all have anal sex.

Skinner wasnt married at the time and he was about to get his nuts cut off. Only a man and a woman can create their biological child so government encourages any heterosexual couple to get married. And a woman can munch carpet all day long and no child will be produced.

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: jb_1430 Skinner wasnt married at the time and he was about to get his nuts cut off. Only a man and a woman can create their biological child so government encourages any heterosexual couple to get married. And a woman can munch carpet all day long and no child will be produced.

You don't seem to be getting it do you? If the purpose of marriage is procreation, and should therefore be denied to couples who cannot reproduce, then you will have to find every single infertile person, go up to them, and say that they cannot get a marriage license. Also, have you ever heard of surrogate mothers?

[jb_1430]

Quote by: ShadowFox You don\'t seem to be getting it do you? If the purpose of marriage is procreation,

I did say it was. I said marriage is about procreation. Without procreation there would be no purpose in licensing and regulating the relationship.

[ShadowFox]

Quote by: jb_1430 I did say it was. I said marriage is about procreation. Without procreation there would be no purpose in licensing and regulating the relationship.

Then why are infertile couples allowed to marry?

[Devil's Advocate]

Quote by: jb_1430 I did say it was. I said marriage is about procreation. Without procreation there would be no purpose in licensing and regulating the relationship.

That's not the only purpose recognized by the Catholic church.

[Tycoon]

I didnt read through the 300 + pages of posts but, no one is stopping anyone from getting married. Just go down to your local Church of Christ or similiar, progressive type church, look lovingly into each others eyes and say till death do we part, BAM, you are married. Even here in conservative baptist central Texas we have such churches. Now I suppose you are going to demand a license. Why would the government want to do that? Marriage is about procreation.

1. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religion.
2. Marriage has absolutely nothing to do with procreation.

No matter how many times bill does john in the but, there isnt going to be any babies popping out.

1. No matter how many times a sterile man does his wife they aren't going to have any children.
2. Homosexual couples can get children through a surrogate mother or through adoption.

I just cant even imagine what purpose government would have in promoting such behavior..... other than just trying to help gays feel a little better about themselves, which is what I believe is behind these demands from gays for the right to marry.

1. I can't see any reason the government would have in marrying a man and a woman when the marriage benefits have nothing to do with children.

Gays are free to create any contract they like between each other.

1. Gays are not free to create a marriage contract with the government like a heterosexual couple can.

What the hell would be the purpose of giving someone a tax break because they promise to take only one hard one up the ass? The spouse of a woman is presumed to be the biological parent of any child she bares. Doesnt make a whole hell of a lot of sense in the case of two lesbians.

1. Marriage benefits have nothing to do with the tax breaks a couple recieves from having children.
2. Homosexual couples can get children through adoption or surrogate mothers.

Anyone of any orientation has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

1. Somebody who is homosexual would not want to marry somebody of the opposite sex.

Im quoting the first supreme court case that established marriage as a Constitutional right. The same precedent that was cited in Loving v Virginia to strike down laws prohibiting inter racial marriages as unconstitutional.

1. The removal of the ban on interracial marriages just shows that tradition can and should change.

The Human race will survive with or without gay sex or me wacking off. Neither activity requires government regulation or licensing and certainly the government has no business promoting either.

1. The government has just as much business promoting gay marriage as it does heterosexual marriage, as the benefits of having children are seperate from the benefits of marriage.

Only a man and a woman can create their biological child so government encourages any heterosexual couple to get married. And a woman can munch carpet all day long and no child will be produced.

1. Procreation has nothing to do with marriage.

I did say it was. I said marriage is about procreation. Without procreation there would be no purpose in licensing and regulating the relationship.

1. Heterosexual couples who marry but refrain from having children still get marriage benefits, as should homosexual couples.

[minorwork]

Quote by: jb_1430 Im quoting the first supreme court case that established marriage as a Constitutional right. The same precedent that was cited in Loving v Virginia to strike down laws prohibiting inter racial marriages as unconstitutional.

Buck v Bell is the first supreme court case that established marriage as a Constitutional right? Are you sure? Doesn't seem to bear any resemblance to Loving v Virginia. What similarity do you see?

Quote by: Wikipedia, Buck v Bell The Court upheld a statute instituting compulsory sterilization of the mentally retarded "for the protection and health of the state."

Quote by: Wikipedia, Loving v Virginia The Court declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby ending all race-based legal restriction on marriage in the United States.

[Night]

IronEagle: Why are you afraid of us gays adopting? Many detailed painstaking studies have shown that gay couples can raise kids just as well as straight couples.

Quote by: jb_1430 Gays are free to create any contract they like between each other. What the hell would be the purpose of giving someone a tax break because they promise to take only one hard one up the ass? The spouse of a woman is presumed to be the biological parent of any child she bares. Doesnt make a whole hell of a lot of sense in the case of two lesbians. Anyone of any orientation has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

What is the sense in giving an infertile couple a tax break because one has a vagina and one has a penis?

But this isn't just about taxes, it is about recognition and having equal rights as heterosexual couples. But tax breaks would be nice too.

[jb_1430]

Quote by: Night IronEagle: Why are you afraid of us gays adopting? Many detailed painstaking studies have shown that gay couples can raise kids just as well as straight couples.

Studies show that children who are raised by their biological parents do BETTER than children who are not. Thats why government encourages intimate, heterosexual couples to marry. If you had a study that showed that children who are raised by homosexual couples did BETTER than children who are not, you would have half of an arguement.

Quote by: Night What is the sense in giving an infertile couple a tax break because one has a vagina and one has a penis?

Just as everyone is encouraged to wear a seat belt even though many of us will never have an accident, all heterosexual couples are encouraged to get married. And the institution of marriage has been around as long as civilization has been around. It has only been recently that we even have the capeability to determine fertility. Because the laws are broader than they need be to fulfill their purpose, isnt a very good arguement for making them even more so by extending them to homosexuals. Are you guys so ideologically blinded that you cant see the purpose of marriage? Do you really think this entire institution has arisen in civilization because people are rubbing genitals and having orgasms, and not because when heterosexuals that rub genitals frequently produce children? Do you think the institution that arose long before in religion before it ever did in government, because of orgasms, and not the results of those orgasms in producing children? Our laws were created for the protection of women and children. Preventing illigitimacy with only a woman left to raise the children on her own. Our sexuality and family structure is evolving quickly enough to more closely resemble that of bonobo chimps than human civilization. The government has no business whatsoever in hastening that evolution even if it would help you gays feel a little better about yourselves. Like I said, there is about as much need to license and regulate homosexual relationships as there is to licensing and regulating my relationship with my left hand. They both have the same worth as far as benefiting society.