Why is same-sex marriage "wrong"

[Artevelde]

Marriage is supposed to be about love right? Why the hell does it matter if it's SS or not? As long as I'm not bothered by it why does it matter who my next door neighbor marries? Stupid people are stupid.

If that is your criterion then it is indeed clear you find it stupid that brothers and sisters and parents and their adult children can't marry.

Stupid people are people who talk about things which they haven't really thought about.

lol

Removing the immediate ick factor from the thought of brother/sister marriage you are left with a host of biological issues.
As for parent/child marriage, illegal for the simple fact of child abuse/coercion and like factors.

Right... I haven't thought of it.... I'm just glad you didn't use the person/animal example.

Try taking some reading lessons: I wrote about parents and their adult children, thus no child abuse involved.

 

[gxnelson]

If that is your criterion then it is indeed clear you find it stupid that brothers and sisters and parents and their adult children can't marry.

Stupid people are people who talk about things which they haven't really thought about.

lol

Removing the immediate ick factor from the thought of brother/sister marriage you are left with a host of biological issues.
As for parent/child marriage, illegal for the simple fact of child abuse/coercion and like factors.

Right... I haven't thought of it.... I'm just glad you didn't use the person/animal example.

Try taking some reading lessons: I wrote about parents and their adult children, thus no child abuse involved.

-.-

A parent is a parent, a child of that parent is still a child of that parent. It's still an abuse of power of the parent. Also, there is still the issues of biological problems.

 

[Artevelde]

lol

Removing the immediate ick factor from the thought of brother/sister marriage you are left with a host of biological issues.
As for parent/child marriage, illegal for the simple fact of child abuse/coercion and like factors.

Right... I haven't thought of it.... I'm just glad you didn't use the person/animal example.

Try taking some reading lessons: I wrote about parents and their adult children, thus no child abuse involved.

-.-

A parent is a parent, a child of that parent is still a child of that parent. It's still an abuse of power of the parent. Also, there is still the issues of biological problems.

So I take it that you agree that the argument that any two consenting adults should be allowed to marry is wrong?

 

[gxnelson]

You need to take some reading lessons, it is abuse of the parent no matter what age the child is. A parent is a parent an child is a child of that parent no matter what age. It is still coercion.

 

[Artevelde]

You need to take some reading lessons, it is abuse of the parent no matter what age the child is. A parent is a parent an child is a child of that parent no matter what age. It is still coercion.

You realize that is pretty ridiculous, right?

 

[gxnelson]

You need to take some reading lessons, it is abuse of the parent no matter what age the child is. A parent is a parent an child is a child of that parent no matter what age. It is still coercion.

You realize that is pretty ridiculous, right?

How so?

Also, you keep asking my why I think incest is wrong, why do you think ss marriage is wrong?

 

[Artevelde]

You need to take some reading lessons, it is abuse of the parent no matter what age the child is. A parent is a parent an child is a child of that parent no matter what age. It is still coercion.

You realize that is pretty ridiculous, right?

How so?

Also, you keep asking my why I think incest is wrong, why do you think ss marriage is wrong?

According to you nobody ever becomes an adult, independent person.

Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron because it is per definition not a marriage. A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. To try to change this is to simply undermine one of the fundamental elements of human society.

 

[JoeB131]

I'm not against SS marriage.

But, I AM against government being involved in marriages. No clergy should ever have been given governmental power, IMO.

So, what's the solution.

No more "marriages". No more magistrates/JPs marrying anyone - no civil marriages. No more goverment empowering churches to marry anyone, either. If churches want to marry folks, that's fine, of course, but the marriage has no legal power.

A marriage, for all practical purposes, is a contract. Folks can just make contracts between themselves. Things go bad, they either exit the contract under the terms they drew out, or they go to court for breach.

Marriage is a contract. Let's treat it as one, and nothing more.

In short, if you have to let "those people" into the club, you'd like to burn the clubhouse down.

There is a very good reason to have legal marriage. One is that once you get rid of legal marriage, family members take precedence in issues like the Schiavo case.

On a more pragmatic note, government isn't going to get out of the marriage business. There's too much money to be made.

 

[JoeB131]

You realize that is pretty ridiculous, right?

How so?

Also, you keep asking my why I think incest is wrong, why do you think ss marriage is wrong?

According to you nobody ever becomes an adult, independent person.

Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron because it is per definition not a marriage. A marriage is a union between a man and a woman. To try to change this is to simply undermine one of the fundamental elements of human society.

One more time, how?

Leaving aside that marriage has already been redefined many times over the century, give me one way that gay marriage undermines marriage in any way, shape or form.

I find it amusing that you are out there harping about the maybe 1% of marriages that might be done for gay people and not the 50% of straight marriages that end in divorce.

 

[JoeB131]

because the big imaginary guy in the sky said so

Good one.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, I can understand that you fail to grasp that a BA, MA and PhD are different degrees. No surprise there.

The idea that women were property is completely laughable. You don't know or understand any history and only think in slogans.

Um, guy, seriously? Where the eff would anyone give you even an associates in history not knowing women were (and still are) considered second class citizens in most of the world.

Nobody "gave" me any of my degrees. I earned them. That is probably also a bit too difficult for you to grasp.

As usual, you just change your tune. Now it's no longerthat women had no property rights but you've shifted to something completely different. Do you ever try to be coherent?

I think I'm being perfectly co-herent, it's too bad you can't follow along, but you just don't seem very bright.

If you can't get a divorce on demand, if your parents pay a dowrey to get rid of you, if your parents are arranging who you get married to, if your husband is allowed to beat you with a stick so long as it isn't bigger than his thumb.

You.

Are.

Property.

It's just as simple as that, guy.

The bible says a husband can take a wife out and stone her if she isn't a virgin on her wedding day. (Deuteronomy 22:13 )

It says a rapist can pay his victims father 50 shekels and buy her. (-- Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

So I find it amusing that you defend this "century old" insittution when most people wouldn't want to practice it the way it's been practiced for most of history, especially the 50% of the population with ovaries.

So now that we've dispensed with that silliness, can you give me a good reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married other than your own sexual insecurities?

 

[Artevelde]

Um, guy, seriously? Where the eff would anyone give you even an associates in history not knowing women were (and still are) considered second class citizens in most of the world.

Nobody "gave" me any of my degrees. I earned them. That is probably also a bit too difficult for you to grasp.

As usual, you just change your tune. Now it's no longerthat women had no property rights but you've shifted to something completely different. Do you ever try to be coherent?

I think I'm being perfectly co-herent, it's too bad you can't follow along, but you just don't seem very bright.

If you can't get a divorce on demand, if your parents pay a dowrey to get rid of you, if your parents are arranging who you get married to, if your husband is allowed to beat you with a stick so long as it isn't bigger than his thumb.

You.

Are.

Property.

It's just as simple as that, guy.

The bible says a husband can take a wife out and stone her if she isn't a virgin on her wedding day. (Deuteronomy 22:13 )

It says a rapist can pay his victims father 50 shekels and buy her. (-- Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

So I find it amusing that you defend this "century old" insittution when most people wouldn't want to practice it the way it's been practiced for most of history, especially the 50% of the population with ovaries.

So now that we've dispensed with that silliness, can you give me a good reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married other than your own sexual insecurities?

Do you have any idea what percentage of marriages involved a dowry? You really are completely ignorant.

 

[JoeB131]

Nobody "gave" me any of my degrees. I earned them. That is probably also a bit too difficult for you to grasp.

As usual, you just change your tune. Now it's no longerthat women had no property rights but you've shifted to something completely different. Do you ever try to be coherent?

I think I'm being perfectly co-herent, it's too bad you can't follow along, but you just don't seem very bright.

If you can't get a divorce on demand, if your parents pay a dowrey to get rid of you, if your parents are arranging who you get married to, if your husband is allowed to beat you with a stick so long as it isn't bigger than his thumb.

You.

Are.

Property.

It's just as simple as that, guy.

The bible says a husband can take a wife out and stone her if she isn't a virgin on her wedding day. (Deuteronomy 22:13 )

It says a rapist can pay his victims father 50 shekels and buy her. (-- Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

So I find it amusing that you defend this "century old" insittution when most people wouldn't want to practice it the way it's been practiced for most of history, especially the 50% of the population with ovaries.

So now that we've dispensed with that silliness, can you give me a good reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married other than your own sexual insecurities?

Do you have any idea what percentage of marriages involved a dowry? You really are completely ignorant.

That was the best you could come up with?

Really? Seriously?

Okay, peasents who didn't have shit didn't come up with them...

but the fact that they had them at all says quite a bit, doesn't it?

Now, please tell me how letting gay folks get married affects your life in any way, shape or form?

You live in Belgium which has same sex marriage. Has it fallen into the North Sea? Are there Nazis riding dinosaurs? Please tell us what great horrors await us...

 

[Artevelde]

I think I'm being perfectly co-herent, it's too bad you can't follow along, but you just don't seem very bright.

If you can't get a divorce on demand, if your parents pay a dowrey to get rid of you, if your parents are arranging who you get married to, if your husband is allowed to beat you with a stick so long as it isn't bigger than his thumb.

You.

Are.

Property.

It's just as simple as that, guy.

The bible says a husband can take a wife out and stone her if she isn't a virgin on her wedding day. (Deuteronomy 22:13 )

It says a rapist can pay his victims father 50 shekels and buy her. (-- Deuteronomy 22:28-29)

So I find it amusing that you defend this "century old" insittution when most people wouldn't want to practice it the way it's been practiced for most of history, especially the 50% of the population with ovaries.

So now that we've dispensed with that silliness, can you give me a good reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married other than your own sexual insecurities?

Do you have any idea what percentage of marriages involved a dowry? You really are completely ignorant.

That was the best you could come up with?

Really? Seriously?

Okay, peasents who didn't have shit didn't come up with them...

but the fact that they had them at all says quite a bit, doesn't it?

Now, please tell me how letting gay folks get married affects your life in any way, shape or form?

You live in Belgium which has same sex marriage. Has it fallen into the North Sea? Are there Nazis riding dinosaurs? Please tell us what great horrors await us...

I note that you acknowledge that all your bluster about the history of marriage was just empty rhetoric.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

Really? We are going to go through this again? And boop, let me ask a question here: Has all the RHETORIC on one side or the other changed ANYONE's mind? I doubt it.

As I've said a hundred times before. I have NO DESIRE for the federal, state, or local government to be involved in determining who is lawfully married. However, there is a legitimate reason for the government to make that determination. Taxes, estates, probate (for the purposes of inheritance, etc) and even criminal law are all impacted by the legal definition of marriage. Since that cannot be ignored, then it becomes the duty of the people to assist with crafting that definition.

Since the beginning of this nation, people have elected representatives that most closely reflect their values. Laws ALWAYS reflect this societies morals, or lack of them (depending on the view point) whether you like that or not. If you take the position that my religion should not be imposed on you, then it is as hollow as any arguement I've ever heard. Simply because your lack of morals in law are in turn imposed on me. If a man steals a loaf of bread and is hungry, we do not charge him with theft simply because of our morals, although his intent was to deprive the owner of the bread without reimbursing him. That exception is NOT codified in the law, it is in our interpretation of the law. Our morals affect the way the law is applied. If a man backs out of the driveway and doesn't see a two year old who runs behind his vehicle and he runs over the baby and kills it, we believe that it is a tragic accident. It is no less of a death than someone who, by incompetence or willful negligence, kills someone else (usually the definition of manslaughter). But because our values dictate the differences in the circumstances, we usually do not charge the man with a crime.

So morals are always a part of the law or our interpretation of the law, always. To define marriage, one must look to what they believe. Most people look to the institution of marriage as not only a governmental definition but also a spiritual one, affected by our values. Therefore to define what a legal marriage is, one looks to the values that they hold. 38 states have decided that marriage is between one man and one woman. A reflection of the values of the people in those states. Even in Kalifornia, when left to a popular vote of the people, marriage has been defined as between one man and one woman. Only a long, drawn out legal rangling has overturned that decision. In my state of Oklahoma, we passed a constitutional amendment by 70% of the vote defining marriage as between one man and one woman and not recognizing those performed in other states. I gave a significant amount of money to the effort as it reflects what my values dictate and I will continue to support that effort.

Some people look on this issue as a 'civil' or equal rights issue. I cannot agree. I point to those who have spent years in a heterosexual relationship, only to decide years later that they are in fact homosexual (apparently more females than males are in this group). When you decide that you are in effect a homosexual, are you then a member of that protected group? Can you go back to being heterosexual (I've met those people as well)? I personally do not know of any Black, Asian, or Native Americans who have jumped from one ethnic group to another and back again. I find it somewhat humorous to imply that a person's ethnicity is therefore similar to one's sexual orientation. I also have to ask WHICH sexual activity is therefore protected? Are all of them, or just some of them?

As I've also said a hundred times, these views DO NOT give credence to any hostility toward a homosexual person or couple. My values and my morals do not allow for such actions.

It's just the way I see it...

 

[JoeB131]

Do you have any idea what percentage of marriages involved a dowry? You really are completely ignorant.

That was the best you could come up with?

Really? Seriously?

Okay, peasents who didn't have shit didn't come up with them...

but the fact that they had them at all says quite a bit, doesn't it?

Now, please tell me how letting gay folks get married affects your life in any way, shape or form?

You live in Belgium which has same sex marriage. Has it fallen into the North Sea? Are there Nazis riding dinosaurs? Please tell us what great horrors await us...

I note that you acknowledge that all your bluster about the history of marriage was just empty rhetoric.

Never said anything of the sort.

So is your English like marginal? Because it certainly seems like you don't really understand the language or its nuances.

 

[Unkotare]

So is your English like marginal? Because it certainly seems like you don't really understand the language or its nuances.

That's pretty funny coming from the likes of you.

 

[JoeB131]

Some people look on this issue as a 'civil' or equal rights issue. I cannot agree. I point to those who have spent years in a heterosexual relationship, only to decide years later that they are in fact homosexual (apparently more females than males are in this group). When you decide that you are in effect a homosexual, are you then a member of that protected group? Can you go back to being heterosexual (I've met those people as well)? I personally do not know of any Black, Asian, or Native Americans who have jumped from one ethnic group to another and back again. I find it somewhat humorous to imply that a person's ethnicity is therefore similar to one's sexual orientation. I also have to ask WHICH sexual activity is therefore protected? Are all of them, or just some of them?

As I've also said a hundred times, these views DO NOT give credence to any hostility toward a homosexual person or couple. My values and my morals do not allow for such actions.

It's just the way I see it...

So it's okay that you're a homophobe because your religion says Homophobia is okay?

The fact is, when someone comes out after being in a straight relationship, the reality is that they were always gay. I knew a woman who was exactly what you describe. She was in a straight relationship with a guy, but she knew from the time she was 11 she liked women. But she married the jerk to make her religious family happy.

And this is the best argument for gay marriage. Once you've said, "this is okay", you won't have people making themselves and others miserable trying to conform.

 

[Artevelde]

That was the best you could come up with?

Really? Seriously?

Okay, peasents who didn't have shit didn't come up with them...

but the fact that they had them at all says quite a bit, doesn't it?

Now, please tell me how letting gay folks get married affects your life in any way, shape or form?

You live in Belgium which has same sex marriage. Has it fallen into the North Sea? Are there Nazis riding dinosaurs? Please tell us what great horrors await us...

I note that you acknowledge that all your bluster about the history of marriage was just empty rhetoric.

Never said anything of the sort.

So is your English like marginal? Because it certainly seems like you don't really understand the language or its nuances.

It's not really a surprise to me that you are too stupid to understand how you've contradicted yourself time and again.

 

[JoeB131]

Nope, I made my position pretty clear, and you're the only one who took an issue with it, because you want to f ind some kind of literary argument about what constitutes "property". (Again, is it one of those ENglish concepts you don't understand.)

So we'll agree that we have a different defintion of the word "property". But mine is right.

Now, to the point. Please tell me why gay marriage would be bad without saying "it's always been this way".

You could have made the same argument about slavery, and we can all agree that is wrong now, right?