Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by downtown, Jun 24, 2011.
oh gawd its anarchy here I had gay people grinding on me all day guise
Sounds awesome. Let me get a piece of that action. Beats someone trying to grind the Old Testament against me, that's for sure.
DT lives in Chicago.
Well, I was replying to the concept of it being an abomination when it was perfectly normal for countless time beforehand with some limits.
Never mind, back then, there wasn't a reason to - marriage is called Matrimony because it was believed its purpose should be to reproduce. Matri from matre, mother.
Back then, there was no male eggs or female sperm. Now there is, at least in development stages.
The meaning of marriage also no longer has to do with reproduction these days, but with love.
So in other words they didn't recognize it because it did not help civilization in the slightest
But now, it can because gays can reproduce too, even with their partner, thanks to the wonder of science, such advanced technology not being known to the Romans. Unless we want to deny marriage rights to the sterile too...
Tradition. Just because it's been done for hundreds of years doesn't make it any less silly or stupid.
If the infertile want kids they can adopt, there are plenty of kids who could use a home and spending tens of thousands of dollars on fertility treatments is very selfish.
Novelty: Just because something's new doesn't make it inherently more sensible or intelligent
I'm not going to wade through 21 pages of undoubtedly very strong arguments why "This is an abhorent attack on the institution of marriage" (I did try though) and realise that in order to choose from the poll there wasn't a more docile option to pick from.
Therefore I'll just go ahead and simply ask: does anyone have a reasonable argument how Gay Marriages detract in any way from Non-Gay Marriages?
And if you believe such a thing, do you also believe that a mass-murderer who prays to God also detracts from your own prayers to God?
Homosexual marriage lacks the essence matrimony.
An argument I've seen is that if homosexual marriage is legalized, but then is later found to "be unable to create exclusive, permanent, unconditional marriages, their failure would reinforce the idea that marriage lacks these qualities and is just a matter of private happiness to be discarded on whim. That would be a great step backward for society, for it would increase divorce and all its associated pathology and create yet another impediment to the happiness and fulfillment of millions of people."
You're going to have to explain that to me.
notice the quotes and that I start that block with "An argument I've seen is that if homosexual marriage is legalized, but then is later found to"
It says reinforce not start. It's like tossing petrol on a bonfire...
I guess the person was talking about if the attachment goes down then it is easier to discard, in reverse a family heirloom might be a piece of junk, but it has large attachment.
can be adopted.
My mistake. I was determined not to engage in an argument, just want to get clarity on the position.
Yeah, the argument is viable. It's what we do in a progressive society: we try to make things better and then suffer the consequences. I've seen enough long-term homosexual marriages that I think they can work.
Marriage is already degraded from the ideal, we don't expect it to get worse.
If you don't agree with gay marriage for religious or whatever reason no one is forcing you to marry a gay person. Why should your religion dictate the major life decisions other people make? There are more than enough children in the world anyway. Humans aren't an endangered species.
Hey, I'd argue pro-gay. Just to counter overpopulation which causes several of the most pressing issues for humanity right now.
Never mind that for as long as male eggs and female sperm are still under development, they can help give orphans the family they need. The family that will make their life better and significantly reduce their chances of turning to crime.
It's ridiculous to deny adoption rights to gays on the basis of being gay, because a single parent or gay parents is always going to be better than none.
And gays can adopt too. Surely they should be allowed.
Unless you would prefer we leave orphans in the orphanage without parents. Never to know the joy of a true family. Of Christmas. Never to have that caring, overbearing mother or father who will whip them into shape if they misbehave or go off the good path.
You did move the goalpost from marriage to ability to raise kids, so I'm just countering gays are still equal here. A single parent or gay parents will ALWAYS be better than none.
Sure sure, but novelty tends to make the world a better place. Imagine if we had told that guy who invented steel that iron was what was used so why advance further?
Traditions will ALWAYS, ALWAYS hold us back. Innovation, on the other hand, creates cure for medicines as much as WMDs, so, we shouldn't deny it out of hand.
It cheapens marriage to be a thing the state decides, rather than the only authority on such matters.
bah, surely you mean this:
Why would the Roman Catholic Church be the only authority that matters?
There's many non-christians that marry. Muslims for example. I hardly doubt they care what the Roman Church says. I plan to get married one day and really don't care what the church thinks about marriage (or anything else).
Don't be absurd. The Greek Orthodox Church is one of many authorities. Others include the Romanian Orthodox Church, the Orthodox Church in America, the Antiochian Orthodox Church and all those in communion with them.
Separate names with a comma.