General Chat / GAY MARRIAGE

A week too late.  Come back to the States, Louis, my love.  I'll go gay right now for the dual citizenship and EU passport.

So I guess I'm the only one who disagrees with gay marriage. 

 

Before I say anything else, let me say this. In no way do I hate homosexuals. In no way do I think homosexuals are not people. They are as equal in my eyes as anyone else. I don't judge people based on their sexuality. 

 

My argument is also from a purely moral standpoint. I don't care to get into the politics of it. 

 

--------------------------------

 

Now. I believe that this decision is a big step backwards for the American society. The decision has essentially redefined marriage from "between one man and one woman" to "between two people". This is a loosening of the rules; the definition of marriage has become more vague, more cloudy with this ruling. 

 

Marriage institutes the family. You can't have a proper family without marriage. Further, the family is the foundation of society. Families pay taxes, families participate in society, families guarantee the next generation of people. So basically, without families, society collapses. 

 

A family based on a gay marriage can't fulfill its duties properly. Mainly, you can't have kids. You might say, "but what about adoption?" Sure! Adoption is great. But you're still cobbling together a "family" that just doesn't have the bonds that your average family does. 

 

So to review. Gay marriage doesn't allow the proper formation of families, which doesn't allow society to function properly. 

 

Let's go back to the definition of marriage. With this ruling, the definition of marriage has been blurred. This is the first attack on the old institution of marriage, but who's to say where it will go next? Marrying multiple spouses? Marrying an animal? Marrying an object? Who knows where the new line will be drawn, if at all! Essentially, by supposedly expanding the definition of marriage, we are destroying the whole classical definition of marriage. What's so bad about that? I'd rather not find out, but centuries of proper marriage and tradition can't be wrong. 

 

Now all of this isn't to say that homosexuals can't have their place in society. Again, homosexuals are as constitutionally and ethically equal as the rest of the population. But choosing to defile the institution of marriage, the basis of our society, can only lead to bad things. 

 

So what are homosexuals supposed to do? You say they can't get married, but what if they really do love each other? I've got no problem with that, either. There's nothing wrong with love. You can't stop it, control it. But you can control yourself.

 

The problem lies within the sexual act. There's more to love than that. Love is caring for the well-being of another as your own. Not getting physical gratification from someone else, that's selfish. Selfishness is the opposite of love. If a homosexual couple really cares for each other, they won't turn to physical gratification. So, basically, homosexual couples can be together all they want. But when the focus turns to the sexual act it becomes backwards. 

 

--------------------------------

 

You may have picked up on this, but I'm a pretty strong Catholic, and I think it shines through in my argument. Feel free to debate my argument, but you're not going to change my core beliefs. I'm looking forward to discussing this issue with you all. 

Let me throw in some counter arguments.

 

'A family based on a gay marriage can't fulfill its duties properly. Mainly, you can't have kids.'

 

Some straight couples cant have kids due to fertility and sperm problems. So are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry? Besides not everything's about children. Maybe thousands of years ago but in a population of over seven billion we don't really need more children.

 

'who's to say where it will go next? Marrying multiple spouses? Marrying an animal? Marrying an object? Who knows where the new line will be drawn, if at all!'

 

The difference between gay marriage and marrying your dog is that gay marriage is between two consenting adults and marrying your dog is not. Besides this isn't the first attack on the old institution of marriage seeing as black people and white people couldn't marry a century ago.

 

'The problem lies within the sexual act'

 

Homosexuals are not walking sex acts. We want a loving relationship just like any other heterosexual. Some heterosexuals are obsessed with sex yet they're allowed to get married? I don't know where you get this stereotype from but you're basing an entire minority on one sex act and how is that fair?

 

Let's go back to the definition of marriage. With this ruling, the definition of marriage has been blurred. This is the first attack on the old institution of marriage, but who's to say where it will go next? Marrying multiple spouses? Marrying an animal? Marrying an object? 

 

 

 

 

https://yourlogicalf.../slippery-slope

I personally live in a gay family. I live with my dad and he's gay and in a loving relationship of 14 years to his pretty-much-husband-but-not-husband

Men and women are equal and should have the same rights. If a woman has the right to marry a man, why shouldn't a man have that same right?

Some straight couples cant have kids due to fertility and sperm problems. So are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry?

 

Couples with fertility issues can at least try. It's not unheard of for couples with supposed issues procreating children. With a homosexual couple is it physically impossible. 

 

Besides not everything's about children.

 

If every couple, no, even just half of all couples decided to not have children, it would have a HUGE impact on our population and world dynamic. 

 

The difference between gay marriage and marrying your dog is that gay marriage is between two consenting adults and marrying your dog is not.

 

I understand this. However. Both are still deviations from the definition of marriage. I'm not saying they're on the same level at all, because they're clearly not. But just because gay marriage as opposed to marrying other things is the lesser of evils doesn't make it right. Also, just because they both consent doesn't mean they're right, either. 

 

Homosexuals are not walking sex acts. We want a loving relationship just like any other heterosexual.

 

I know this. It's unfair to stereotype homosexuals like this. But it's impossible to deny that there are homosexuals who are all about the act. The fact that heterosexuals can marry but homosexuals cannot is a part of our society that has been around for so long that it's going to be hard to change the opinion of everyone. Including me. I suppose it's the harsh reality.

 

 

Slippery slope? Perhaps, but with what our society can do today, you can't discount it. 

 

 

It looks like I've opened a can of worms here. I know there are several homosexuals and/or people with homosexual family members or friends on this site. Again, I'm not trying to disrespect you. I'm only presenting my argument from what I believe is morally right. 

 

 

Edit for tim's post.

 

A woman marrying a man and a man marrying a man are not the same. At all. 

Why do you define marriage exactly as 1 man and 1 woman

Because that's how it's been for centuries. 

The world was very different 500 years ago.

The only difference is genitalia. And I don't think that genetalia should have any effect on who you may be allowed to spend your life with.

Also keep in mind that this is the legal definition of marriage, not the biblical one. Churches can and should stay true to their own beliefs as to what marriage means biblically, but that should not affect the law of the United States.

fuck, csw. i thought you were cool.

You can spend your life with whomever you want. You don't have to be married to live with someone for the rest of your life. But homosexuals living together and calling it marriage is not the same. Even now that gay marriage is legal, their marriage is not quite the same as traditional. I'm not saying it's better or worse, just that its different. There's something integrally different about gay marriage from traditional marriage. 

 

Perhaps my argument is being affected by my religious beliefs. And yes, the law of the land supercedes religion. It's just a shame that they don't get along in this case.

 

fuck, csw. i thought you were cool.

 

Really? What have I said to change your opinion? Am I not allowed to disagree? I'm sorry if you've taken offense. I've said multiple times that I'm not trying to make enemies here. 

Yeah, let's not let personal beliefs ruin any kind of relationships here at NE. Csw is still cool even though his beliefs are different.

Now. I believe that this decision is a big step backwards for the American society

 

It is one of the rare instances in my life where I have actually seen a step forward for the American society. 

 

Marriage institutes the family. You can't have a proper family without marriage.

Why not?

 

Further, the family is the foundation of society. Families pay taxes, families participate in society, families guarantee the next generation of people.

Sex guarantees a next generation of people, not family.  

 

A family based on a gay marriage can't fulfill its duties properly. Mainly, you can't have kids. You might say, "but what about adoption?" Sure! Adoption is great. But you're still cobbling together a "family" that just doesn't have the bonds that your average family does.

Now you're just offending people. Maybe not people on this site, but still. 

 

by supposedly expanding the definition of marriage, we are destroying the whole classical definition of marriage. What's so bad about that? I'd rather not find out, but centuries of proper marriage and tradition can't be wrong.

"It has always been like this" is never a valid argument. Especially coming from someone who had just implied that a country should never take steps backwards? So also not forwards, therefore relatively lagging behind?

 

Now all of this isn't to say that homosexuals can't have their place in society. Again, homosexuals are as constitutionally and ethically equal as the rest of the population. But choosing to defile the institution of marriage, the basis of our society, can only lead to bad things.

Bad things like what? 

 

The problem lies within the sexual act. There's more to love than that.

Nobody says otherwise. 

 

But when the focus turns to the sexual act it becomes backwards.

 

Says the only one that puts the focus on it. 

Nothing csw said was offensive or trying to offend others. I completely disagree with him, but i know that if i weren't exposed to lgbt people at an early age as i was, i probably would have similar ideals as him

One thing though, just because you dissent csw, do you think a government had the right and responsibility to legislate morality whenever the act in question doesn't harm ones life, their property, or their rights?

I agree with most of the SCOTUS dissenting opinions in that same-sex marriage laws should be left to the states. On one hand, it seems a bit too overreaching to mandate that it be legal, but on the other, it's better than just letting the debate fester and divide the country even more. As I said I don't like to get into the politics of it so that's probably a lame answer, sorry.  

 

Most of Faas's response I'm not going to go through, because I doubt he'll accept anything I say in rebuttal. But there are a few things:

 

Sex guarantees a next generation of people, not family.  

 

That may be so, but how successful is raising a child outside of a family compared to within a family? Have you ever read Brave New World? That's a society without family. Not a pleasant one, either. 

 

 Now you're just offending people. Maybe not people on this site, but still. 

 

How so?

That may be so, but how successful is raising a child outside of a family compared to within a family? Have you ever read Brave New World? That's a society without family. Not a pleasant one, either. 

 

Reading it right now (don't like the book). Regardless, It's an example that is too extreme. A lot of brilliant succesful people grew up outside of what you would consider a traditional family. At the same time a lot of horrible people grew up in a protective family environment with a loving mom and dad.  

 

How so?

 

There are a lot of parents that have adopted a child and are better parents than some biological parents will ever be, and giving that child better opportunities and/or more love than that child would have otherwise ever had, so by saying they have "cobbled together a "family" " is just offensive and basically saying "screw your efforts and loving environment, you are not a family the way I want to see it, so it doesn't count".

Furthermore, by saying that that family doesn't have the bonds that your average family does, you're basically deciding for that family what kind of bonds they have, and that they are inferior to other "average" families. You don't know that. 

You're saying gay marriage being allowed can only lead to bad things. I want to know what kind of bad things you think can happen, except for gay people getting married. Have you been taught what will happen? Or do you have your own ideas about what bad things will happen? 

 

You may have picked up on this, but I'm a pretty strong Catholic, and I think it shines through in my argument. Feel free to debate my argument, but you're not going to change my core beliefs. I'm looking forward to discussing this issue with you all. 

 

 

So you are trying to solve a modern problem with a 2000 year old moral codex. I mean wtf?

 

I still believe this thing will be the same as past stuff about racism and sexism. In 20 or 30 years we will look back and ask ourselves how this even was a discussion, except some backward thinking people of course.

Fair enough. You win on the adoption front. 

 

As for what could happen next? I've already covered that. Marriage could decay to a point where it has no meaning because its definition has been stretched so far.