Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

Nodin wrote: »

Really? Marriage wasn't a sacrament of the church until around the time of the reformation, and marriage in many cultures has frequently been between a man and a number of women, rarely between a woman and a number of men. There are cultures with no marriage at all.



Right...you went out with one chinese woman, from a world population of about 1.3 - 1.4 billion chinese people, and this "put you off other races entirely".

You don't see a flaw in that "logic" anywhere?

I know what you mean but that was one little post. I just don't feel that feeling with girls of other races. I dunno why. I can't help it! I've only felt that feeling with white girls. I'm not saying white girls are any better, ofcourse they aren't but gay people can't help being gay and I can't help being a YT lover haha!

When I say marriage I mean one man being with one woman for the entirety of their lifetimes (In the ideal sense)

One man being with multiple woman is wrong, that's how I feel in my heart.

Anyways, my woman is more than enough for me

Nodin wrote: »

Yet thats quite possibly the majority shape of the "institution of marriage" through human history. You have some notion in your head that people walking up the aisle is some monolithic part of human culture, when in fact its a relatively recent phenomena for the ordinary couple. Based on this idealised fallacy, you want to deny marriage to people who want it.

Man - where did I ever say I wanted to deny it? I have no right to deny anyone anything which doesn't harm someone or cause trouble. I'm just not comfortable with it. If it makes them happy i'm happy for them but I really wish they could be happy with civil unions.

If civil unions aren't suitable maybe we could adjust them in some way!?

King Mob wrote: »

And we all know in our hearts that denying people something because bigots and close minded people like you have stupid hang ups about is wrong.

So again, why shouldn't gays be given the same rights as other people?
Why are you singling out gays for the lesser label? Why aren't you insisting that people who are married in other religious ceremonies should only have civil unions? Or people who get married in civil ceremonies?

I'm not a bigot or closed minded; Also, i'm not insisting anything.

I'm merely saying civil unions should be sufficient, if they're not sufficient i'm sure we could come to an agreement with homosexuals to adjust them in some way to suit their needs.

I want marriage to be for a man and a woman!

I can't help that. I'm not insisting homosexuals don't get married. It's not up to me to insist anything. I'm just stating my feelings.

PS. What's up with calling me a bigot? You're the one who's closed minded if you can't accept another mans opinions!

EDIT: Also, civil union isn't a "lesser" form of marriage. It's an equal form of contract between two people who love each other!

Sponge25 wrote: »

They have civil unions which is basically marriage.

As Links234 has already pointed out, this is wrong, unless you adopt a hopelessly loose interpretation of the word basically.

Sponge25 wrote: »

Marriage as an insitution has been around as long as mankind.

Again, wrong. Marriage as a social instiution is a relatively recent invention as far as humans are concerned. Also the idea of a male-female pair-bond marriage is also extremely rare when you take a broad historical perspective. Marriage has taken just about every form imaginable throughout history including polygyny, polyandry, group marriages and even co-marriages (e.g. married Eskimo couples who would marry another couple). The image in your head of a man and woman falling in love and getting married does not sit with the overwhelming majority of societies, both past and present.

This might explain things in more detail, if you're interested.

Marriage, A History

Sponge25 wrote: »

Why can't they just be happy with civil unions? If I was gay i'd be happy with civil unions.

But you're not gay, and even if you were and you were happy with civil union, so what? Why should that impose a restriction on someone who does want civil marriage. You're generalising from self about what other people should want. Not exactly a sound argument.

Sponge25 wrote: »

Most people in the world aren't ready for gay marriage. They just got civil unions can't they give us a little time to adjust?

What is your basis for this claim? What do you need time to adjust for? Is gay marriage going to have some terrible impact on your life or society or something?

Sponge25 wrote: »

Also; i'm not racist but i'm only attracted to white woman, I can't help what I like. Everyone else can marry green woman for all I care but I've always been mystified when my friends talked about Beyonce and Rihanna etc. I was just never attracted to them. I can see why others are but I'm only attracted to white girls. If that makes me racist, i'm racist. I didn't make a concious decision to only date white girls it's just what I like and I can't help that. I dated a Chinese girl for a short amount of time a few years ago and that put me off other races entirely. This is strictly about dating. I have many friends of other races and what other people do is entirely their own buisiness when it comes to dating other races.

Is this supposed to be an argument against gay marriage or did your brain kinda wander off in the middle there. What point are you trying to make?

Sponge25 wrote: »

When I say marriage I mean one man being with one woman for the entirety of their lifetimes (In the ideal sense)

One man being with multiple woman is wrong, that's how I feel in my heart.

What exactly makes polygamy wrong? I get that you find it not to your liking but wrong??

Sponge25 wrote: »

I'm not a bigot or closed minded; Also, i'm not insisting anything.

I'm merely saying civil unions should be sufficient, if they're not sufficient i'm sure we could come to an agreement with homosexuals to adjust them in some way to suit their needs.

I want marriage to be for a man and a woman!

I can't help that. I'm not insisting homosexuals don't get married. It's not up to me to insist anything. I'm just stating my feelings.

PS. What's up with calling me a bigot? You're the one who's closed minded if you can't accept another mans opinions!

EDIT: Also, civil union isn't a "lesser" form of marriage. It's an equal form of contract between two people who love each other!

A bigot is "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices". Since you are retreating into the "that's my opinion" defence when challenged to defend them on a rational basis, bigot is the most accurate term. It may not be the nicest or most polite one, but it fits.

You see, as Ricky Gervais said you are entitled to your own opinions, you're not entitled to your own facts. There are real issues at stake here, the most important of which is the right to be treated equally before the law. We don't and should not decide these matters on the basis of how we feel. We must find sound logical and evidential reasons if we are going to deny people their rights and so far there hasn't been one sound argument offered against gay marriage in this thread.

Sponge25 wrote: »

This is gonna sound silly but a gay man has the same right to marry one woman like me or have a civil partnership with one man like me. That seems pretty fair to me.

King Mob: I don't have a dislike for any group. I don't dislike gay people. Yes I have a few minor grievances with the homosexual community but I could be perfectly good friends with a homosexual man or woman. If they couldn't accept that I have differing views on a subject or two, that's not my problem.

OK - I don't agree with gay marriage for one reason. You can call me a bigot or any name ya want but I don't think homosexual couples should raise children. I don't think it should be denied to them but the child will go trough hell with the confusion of having two daddies or two mammies. Plus; the child will be bullied to no end at school and by his pals (Anyone who claims otherwise is a fool!) Children get bullied for no wearing the latest runners let alone having two daddies.

A child needs one mother and one father, nature has dictated this not me. They need the soft nurturing love a female provides and the strict informative protection a male provides. It's a delicate mix which nature does not intend be interfered with. That's why I don't agree with gay marriage for this one reason.

Look I want people to be happy like the next man but I had a bad time growing up cause my mum was an alcoholic so i'm big on children having a good upbringing. I don't think a homosexual couple is suitable to raise a child. Now; yas all asked me repeatedly to tell yas why i'm against gay marriage and now I told yas so if yas can't reply in a mature fashion don't bother. Don't call me names neither. I'm not a bigot, i'm a realist!

Oh, please not this again. Look, you're wrong. Really, really wrong. Rather than go into detail of how wrong you are again for the millionth time, have a read of this post first.

Not only does all the research we have conducted in this area show that you're wrong but so too do the experiences of regulars here who have grown up in LGBT households. I'm sure that Sonics, bluewolf or Bannasidhe can enlighten you further.

There is no detriment to the outcome of a child by being raised by gay parents.

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Oh, please not this again. Look, you're wrong. Really, really wrong. Rather than go into detail of how wrong you are again for the millionth time, have a read of this post first.

Not only does all the research we have conducted in this area show that you're wrong but so too do the experiences of regulars here who have grown up in LGBT households. I'm sure that Sonics, bluewolf or Bannasidhe can enlighten you further.

There is no detriment to the outcome of a child by being raised by gay parents.

I really hope that's the case. I'm sure there's alot of people who grew up with same-sex parents and grew up to be good men and woman but I bet there's alot of cases where people grew up being so confused and bullied so bad they ended up in a bad place.

I dunno. Me personally; If I grew up with two daddies two mummies I would've been so confused, I would've been bullied and ostracised to no end. It would've been hell for me. I want people to be happy like anyone else so this is why i'm worried about kids growing up in same-sex homes.

I just want to stress; I have absolutely nothing against homosexuality. What people do in their own homes in their own times is not my buisiness in any way shape or form as long as it doesn't hurt anyone; But I think there's a great possibility that children growing up in same-sex environments will suffer great stressed because of it. No one can deny this. Even if growing up in a healthy same-sex home is viable. It will almost certainly confuse any child when he starts to see all his pals have a mammy and a daddy and he has two daddies. That'd confuse any boy or girl.

The only other thing I dislike about homosexuals is how they have gay pride marches. Not the marches themselves persay, it's how they prance around have naked and gimpsuits etc! (Don't even try to say this doesn't happen)

In general though, i'm happy the homosexual community is finally being taken seriously and they're getting what they need. I just hope it all works out for the homosexual community themselves and the straight community considering we all have to live together.

oldrnwisr: I'd appreciate it if you took back calling me a bigot just cause of my differing views!

King Mob wrote: »

But every single scientific study that has ever actually compared children raised by straight parents and those raised by gay parents have found that there is no difference between them. Children from gay parents are not more subject to any more psychological problems from their upbringing than children raised by straight parents. There is as much difference between children of gay parents and children of straight parents as there is between different sets of children of straight parents.

So what basis do you have to conclude otherwise? Cause just saying "nature told me" is not convincing. It's just another manifestation of your own prejudices. "Nature" tells us that you shouldn't be spewing your bigotry on a magic box that transmits your opinion all over the world, yet here we are.

And why are children even featuring in this discussion?
Do you think that straight couples should be vetted to see if they are adequate to raise children?
Maybe we should bar poorer families from having children, using your same logic. Perhaps we should halt mixed race marriages because mixed race children are subject to huge amounts of bullying?

And then what about gay couples who want to get married but not have children? What about straight couples who do the same?

Poorer families are often better families than their rich counterparts. The form closers bonds and the children are often loved far more.

Children from same-sex marriages are almost certainly going to be bullied and confused. I don't think any reasonable person can claim otherwise. Children are bullied for not having the latest iPhone so imagine what would happen when their classmates found out that 'Chris' has two daddies. The child would be crucified and you know it!

I'd appreciate you stop calling me a bigot or don't contact me again!

I'm not a bigot.

gvn wrote: »

Did you even read the page oldrnwisr linked to? You couldn't have, given that there's 10 minutes between oldrnwisr posting his reply to you, and you posting the above reply. You could have at least read the link, and the pages it links to, before dismissing it.

oldrnwisr, I feel you're wasting your time with this one.

I did, I read as much as I could! I'm doing a few too many things to read it thoroughly but I assure you an oldrnwisr that I will read it in it's entirety soon.

Why is he waisting his time? Because you assumed I didn't read it when I did!? We're discussing something. If people can't accept some people have differing views then they ought to lock themselves in their rooms!

King Mob wrote: »

Except there's not any cases of that, at least no more that occur with children who were raised by straight couples.

You have no basis for making your assertions and all of the science and opinions of people who, unlike you, know what they are talking about all disargee with you.

You opinion is based on ignorance, irrationality and prejudice, hence we we are calling you what you are: a bigot.

And so, unless you can provide something objective to show that children are worse off with gay parents, we will continue to call things what they are.

How dare you call people bigots just because they disagree with you and then have the neck to call me small minded because my opinion differs from you! If you want to discuss our views with me, i'm more than open to but stop trying to get a rise out of me because it's not going to happen.

What more can I say? I want homosexual people to be happy. I want all people to be happy. I'm a very kind and caring kinda guy. I really am. I do quiet a bit of charity. I'm just worried about the kids is all. If same-sex families are happy do you not think that would make me happy? Ofcourse it would. If that makes me a bigot then I'm happy to be a bigot!