Marriage

[Birdjaguar]

Get rid of marriage as a legal institution. No one is married legally. Offer civil unions (with tax benefits) to every couple. Marriage then becomes strictly a religious institution and carries no legal weight (and no tax benefits) outside of religion.

I kinda like this option.
Bolding my additions.

 

[garric]

There you go again, imposing your morals on someone else. What difference does it make to you that someone else decides to marry two woman? Or a woman and a man? Or whomever?

I actually care about what happens in life. I don't have this whole "Whatever" attitude about issues. Excuse me, if you find this offensive.

However, I dislike the whole argument. Why am I a bigot just because I disagree with your views?

 

[Left]

I actually care about what happens in life. I don't have this whole "Whatever" attitude about issues. Excuse me, if you find this offensive.

But it doesn't happen in your life. It happens in other peoples lives. You don't have to like it, you don't have to have one. Go ahead and marry and woman if you choose, if someone else chooses to marry a man, live and let live.

 

[Turner]

I do acknowlage that there are infertle couples out there that do marry and cannot have children by no fault of their own. I have known my peers who are getting ready to be married after they graduate college to start a family and raise children. For me the point of marrage is.

1. The openess for the creation of life. Note that I said "openess" which means that a couple has an option to procreate to create life.
2. As well as two people pledging their love to one another.

Nowhere in the marriage vows I've seen say anything that a couple must produce children. Note that I'm not talking about infertile couples. While procreation is the logical next step, nowhere is it explicitly stated that a married couple must produce offspring. It is entirely optional.

I am mainly refering to the common folks and the citizens who marry in history

Again, marriage has been about convenience for the common folks just as it's been about love. You think every person who got married loved their spouse? You don't think that possible one farmer married his son or daughter off to a neighboring farmer to make it more advantageous to themselves? Not everyone who's gotten married did so because they loved their future spouse. I wouldn't be surprised if marriages of convenience happened more than marriages of love.

I would feel that the child with two mothers or two fathers would be bullied even more by their peers who have a normal nuclear family and also leave that child emotionaly confused when that child's peers has normal mothers and fathers (eather biological or step-parents)

You do realize that children who have steps have two mothers, or two fathers. And certainly the potential for both. The point I was making was that there are a lot of children out there who have two mothers and two fathers. Via divorce and remarry. These kids are certainly doing no worse, or no better, than children with the 'tradtional' one mother and one father. Certainly if children who have been through a divorce and two remarriages can do well having two mothers and/or two fathers, then children who have homosexual parents will do no worse.

And you'd be surprised on what children will accept. Does that mean that they won't be teased? Of course not. Every child has the potential to be teased. It doesn't matter if it's because of looks, or eco-social position, or because of diabillity. But children can be very accepting of Those Who Are Different. I know. I have a daughter who's in special ed, and all of her classmates love her.

I dont realy feel that I am imposing my morals to others. These are realy just my opinions and my opinions alone. I am not actively in congress pushing forward a bill to ban same-gender marrage or anything that relates to my morals. I only stated my opinions on what I feel. I do disagree with your possition but I do respect your views.

Well, that's where you and I differ then. I can't respect hypocracy.

You've stated time and time again that homosexuality is wrong. You've stated here that homosexuals don't deserve to be treated equally. You cannot treat people the way you wish to be treated. That is the basic tenant of your religion, and you don't follow it.

If you did, you would realize that homosexuals have the same desires you do. To spend their lives with people they love. To raise their children, however aquired, be it via marriage, birth, or adoption, and live their lives peacefully. You impose your morals on them, saying they can't have what they want because it goes against your religion. All they want is what you want. To live, with those they care about and love, in peace.

I actually care about what happens in life. I don't have this whole "Whatever" attitude about issues. Excuse me, if you find this offensive.

However, I dislike the whole argument. Why am I a bigot just because I disagree with your views?

Why can't you let people who have nothing to do with you do as they please? How does it hurt you? How does it affect you?

 

[garric]

No real issue really "affects" you. Like abortion, for example. I'm sure that most (99.99%) people on these forums won't even have to ever deal with an abortion, however, you still have a stance on it.

Gays being allowed to get married is the same to me as allowing child molestors get engaged with children or polygamy. Think of it this way - would you allow necrophiliacs to have sex with corpses? It doesn't affect you in any way, so what do you care?

And to boot, this whole gay marriage issue is ultimately based on tax benefits, in either way. But in either way, gay marriage is a marriage based on lust - not on love.

 

[Left]

Pedophilia and necrophilia are not consensual. Your analogy does not work.

 

[The Yankee]

And to boot, this whole gay marriage issue is ultimately based on tax benefits, in either way. But in either way, gay marriage is a marriage based on lust - not on love.

Considering that married people have certain legal benefits, surely it is. But how would you know it's lust and not love?

 

[garric]

Pedophilia and necrophilia are not consensual. Your analogy does not work.

What if the child consents? Is it okay? There are cases where the child consents.

And what if, since we're speaking hypothetically, someone writes that people may have sex with their body after they die, would that be acceptable?

The analogy is relevant. Not to mention you can bring stuff up like polygamy into the mix, which is very much so consentual.

 

[garric]

Considering that married people have certain legal benefits, surely it is. But how would you know it's lust and not love?

Supposedly, a homosexual can't "physically" love a woman (aka, sex her up). However, could he not bond with her on an emotional level? Or is sex all that matters, now? Can't have sex with her, can't love her?

 

[Stylesjl]

What if the child consents? Is it okay? There are cases where the child consents.

A child cannot consent end of story. Don't beleive me? Read up about a term called informed consent

 

[Sahkuhnder]

What if the child consents? Is it okay? There are cases where the child consents.

A child is legally incapable of giving consent.

Stick to behavior between consenting adults and leave the other stuff out because it just clouds the issue and isn't relevant to the OP choices.

 

[garric]

A child cannot consent end of story. Don't beleive me? Read up about a term called informed consent

Why not? Are you discriminating on someone based on their age? Who are you to decide whether a child can consent or not?

 

[Stylesjl]

But in either way, gay marriage is a marriage based on lust - not on love.

And Hetero isn't lust?

 

[Zarn]

And to boot, this whole gay marriage issue is ultimately based on tax benefits, in either way. But in either way, gay marriage is a marriage based on lust - not on love.

Are you an expert or something? What makes you think a homosexual couple could not love one another? I need proof that it is not possible.

Two people of the same gender can love each other. It is not a strange concept.

 

[GenMarshall]

Certainly if children who have been through a divorce and two remarriages can do well having two mothers and/or two fathers, then children who have homosexual parents will do no worse.

And you'd be surprised on what children will accept. Does that mean that they won't be teased? Of course not. Every child has the potential to be teased. It doesn't matter if it's because of looks, or eco-social position, or because of diabillity. But children can be very accepting of Those Who Are Different. I know. I have a daughter who's in special ed, and all of her classmates love her.

I guess you have not had the experiance on being picked on horibly that makes you dont want ot go to school nor socialize with other peersm. Children are the meanest people on this planet and can be teased so horibly that it virtualy scars the victim. I find it hard to acknowlage that children can be very accepting of thoes who are different because I have been there on the reciving end at my late childhood and teenage years.

You've stated time and time again that homosexuality is wrong.

I only stated that homosexuality sex acts are wrong, not the sexual orientation

You've stated here that homosexuals don't deserve to be treated equally. You cannot treat people the way you wish to be treated. That is the basic tenant of your religion, and you don't follow it.

Is there another clone of me running about that I dont know about? Anyway, joking asside. I dont acknowlage that homosexuals don't deserve to be treated equally, I only acknowlage and advocate what the Catholic Church states in it's Catechism, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided." However, I feel that same-gender marrages would consitute moral acceptance and approval for an immoral sex act and cannot be supported in any circumstance. I feel that homosexual sex acts falls under the category of adultery, which is basicly having relations between two unmarried people or one unmarried person with another married person.

I see homosexual people as single people on the same level as single heterosexual males and females. Single people, in my opinion are called to chasity untill marrage. For men and woman with deap-seated homosexual tendencies, marrage is not an option because it would be an acceptance of an immoral sex act, so homosexuals are encuraged to live a life of chasity and abstain from sex. I do acknowlage that it is difficult for homosexuals to live in a life of abstanance as well as leaving their partner.

Why can't you let people who have nothing to do with you do as they please?

They can do as they please in their own homes. But I dont support same-gender marrages because of the reasons I stated in my previous paragraph.

How does it hurt you? How does it affect you?

What they do in their homes dont hurt me. How it effects me is that I feel sadden that they close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. However this is not limited to homosexual sex acts but also a general background for other Catholic prohibitions against fornication, contraception, pornography, and masturbation.

 

[garric]

A child is legally incapable of giving consent.

Stick to behavior between consenting adults and leave the other stuff out.

I don't understand your argument.

A marriage is between a man and a woman, you wish to change it, saying it can be between two adults. Is it completely CRAZY to even suggest to take it one step further and say that children can be permitted too? Isn't that what you're doing, trying to change laws?

 

[Stylesjl]

Why not? Are you discriminating on someone based on their age? Who are you to decide whether a child can consent or not?

Because children have undeveloped minds and are incapable of understanding the very complicated consequences of having sex. Several teens and adults can't either but a line needs to be drawn somewhere.......

 

[Zarn]

I don't understand your argument.

A marriage is between a man and a woman, you wish to change it, saying it can be between two adults. Is it completely CRAZY to even suggest to take it one step further and say that children can be permitted too? Isn't that what you're doing, trying to change laws?

Yes, it is crazy. Adults can make such decisions. Children can't. It is two different issues.

 

[garric]

Because children have undeveloped minds and are incapable of understanding the very complicated consequences of having sex. Several teens and adults can't either but a line needs to be drawn somewhere.......

I drew the line already, yet you find my opinions as bigoted and discriminatory. Tell me, why do you feel that this is so outlandish (to allow children), yet you find my argument offensive? Isn't it being uneven to say that this alternative is legit, yet this one isn't?

 

[Stylesjl]

I don't understand your argument.

A marriage is between a man and a woman, you wish to change it, saying it can be between two adults. Is it completely CRAZY to even suggest to take it one step further and say that children can be permitted too? Isn't that what you're doing, trying to change laws?

Yes it is crazy to suggest that because children cannot give cosent in a proper manner but two adults can!

Edit: My post was similar to Zarn, too similar