I say no to both.
I disagree with the concept of marriage as a concept at a fundamental level and believe it has spawned a broken society (I am a polyamorist and an atheist/agnostic).
I don't say no to gay adoption as such, but since adoption is based on a percieved need for parents, based on the institution of marriage, I disagree with it fundamentally also.
I also believe morals and ethics are subjective, and that "natural rights," being a product of these, but with a presumption that they are otherwise, are total horse excrement.
I disagree with the concept of marriage as a concept at a fundamental level and believe it has spawned a broken society (I am a polyamorist and an atheist/agnostic).
I don't say no to gay adoption as such, but since adoption is based on a percieved need for parents, based on the institution of marriage, I disagree with it fundamentally also.
I also believe morals and ethics are subjective, and that "natural rights," being a product of these, but with a presumption that they are otherwise, are total horse excrement.
Originally Posted by HuggyBear
I say no to both.
I disagree with the concept of marriage as a concept at a fundamental level and believe it has spawned a broken society (I am a polyamorist and an atheist/agnostic).
I don't say no to gay adoption as such, but since adoption is based on a percieved need for parents, based on the institution of marriage, I disagree with it fundamentally also.
I see your point, but this IS a discussions about these issues, so if you disagree with them on a moral standpoint altogether, that kind rules out anything in that area. Remember though, what we are discussing is the legal issues attached to marriage. So, is it right that straight people are allowed by a government (in the US, a government that is supposed to be separate from any religion which may forbid it) to marry, but that homosexuals are not, aside from your personal views on marriage?
Originally Posted by HuggyBear
I also believe morals and ethics are subjective
True dat, to a certain degree, but also, this is another discussion.
Originally Posted by lancer_c
I don't see how your comparison makes sense with my above logic. I am simply stating "people will challenge it", as they have their own (albeit unique) attractions to that which they love and could easily argue "unfair treatment". Is that difficult to imagine?
Read up on what Warhero said about slippery slope logic. It is not only one of the most commonly used forms of rhetorich, but it also faulty as hell.
Originally Posted by lancer_c
I don't feel its completely off topic as it addresses the statement "give marriage access to all citizens", as to what "marriage" would actually be or become.
If this were a theoretichal disscussion, than no, you wouldnt be off topic. But to say "this and that and maybe that thing also could happen" when talking about things that are already happen is the same as derailing the topic and focusing on wholly different issues.
Originally Posted by lancer_c
I wouldn't entirely rule out that there will "NEVER be a large enough amount of people in the next two categories for them to happen". One could have argued the same thing 50 years back for a statement of "marriage between the same sex may occur".
Google Alfred Kinsey. Or yes, like someone else said, read about ancient Rome and Greece. Honestly I'm sure being attracted to animals and inanimate objects is nothing new either, the main difference is that homosexuality has been very prevalent since as early as we started writing and has gone in and out of public favor and approval several times. Bestiality and loving things has rarely, if ever, been seen as permissible by any society.
Originally Posted by lancer_c
Note: The link was only provided as a statement, I know it's not a serious piece of news but simply was referring to the base concept in relation to my "joining of organisms" statement.
You posted the link after making a statement, which basically says "see, look at this link for proof."
As for whether or not she actually attracted to it, what about the young attractive woman who marries an 80 year old rich man, claiming to love him and be attracted to him? Surely nobody ever abuses marriage simply to gain wealth or fame...
Originally Posted by Twitch131
I really don't like gay people. Yeah, I have no problem with them, but don't get all homo around me, it's not my thing. I'm gonna stick to vagina.
Good luck coming out of the closet homes :P
Organisation of Awesome: Member.
Originally Posted by Odlov
I don't know how many times i have to bring this up, but marriage is NOT just a religious ceremony, but a contract which carries far more benefits than the phony "civil union". Either we strip it of it's practical benefits and leave it a purely religious rite, or we grant access to all citizens.
Pardon my terminology. Marriage is not a religious process. WEDDINGS are a religious process. The complete separation of marriage from religion would be enough to get a "yes" for gay marriage from me. It's the wedding that's out of place.
[Piratez]
I am neither Oyster nor lsl.
I am neither Oyster nor lsl.
Originally Posted by hydrotoxin
Pardon my terminology. Marriage is not a religious process. WEDDINGS are a religious process. The complete separation of marriage from religion would be enough to get a "yes" for gay marriage from me. It's the wedding that's out of place.
...Did you not here me say "Domestic Partnership" and how it was done by the state (attorneys) not the church (priests/rabbi's, etc.)?
If two homosexuals want to become one official, state-approved, couple, and have all of the same benefits as a heterosexual couples do, but there isn't a priest there before they celebrate, that's fine. Homosexuality is frowned upon in their "house"; however, the church cannot dictate law. So the same benefits such as adoption should be provided to them WITHOUT the church's dictation.
(not to mention all other civil liberties but that's beyond the scope of this discussion)
Need help?
Creati0n says: still my favorite. <3
I sacrificed my firstborn for this great human being to join (M) ~R
Just Use Thunder!
Creati0n says: still my favorite. <3
I sacrificed my firstborn for this great human being to join (M) ~R
Just Use Thunder!
Originally Posted by Hxcbbqimo
...Did you not here me say "Domestic Partnership" and how it was done by the state (attorneys) not the church (priests/rabbi's, etc.)?
If two homosexuals want to become one official, state-approved, couple, and have all of the same benefits as a heterosexual couples do, but there isn't a priest there before they celebrate, that's fine. Homosexuality is frowned upon in their "house"; however, the church cannot dictate law. So the same benefits such as adoption should be provided to them WITHOUT the church's dictation.
(not to mention all other civil liberties but that's beyond the scope of this discussion)
I didn't say I disagreed, did I?
[Piratez]
I am neither Oyster nor lsl.
I am neither Oyster nor lsl.
