cmac Posted December 28, 2003 Share Posted December 28, 2003 The debate in the U.S. Has two standpoints, both with rather good arguments. The pro-marriage standpoint is that if two people love each other, they should be allowed to be married. The anti-marraige standpoint is that it goes agianst God's will, and does not contribute population to society, as do heterosexual marraiges. I must say I agree with the anti-marraige argument. What are your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luxar Posted December 28, 2003 Share Posted December 28, 2003 homosexual marriages are a no-no. they go against God's will, and if you don't believe in God, then they go against nature and science and all that jazz. don't do it. don't allow it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wesaynothin Posted December 28, 2003 Share Posted December 28, 2003 I say, why not? So what if it doesn't contribute to the worlds population. The world is overpopulated anyways. And not everyone believes in God. Aren't church and state supposed to stay away from each other? Homosexuals are supposed to have just as many rights as Hetrosexuals, so let them have those rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aelfric Fey Necurat Posted December 28, 2003 Share Posted December 28, 2003 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO....why? Cause thats just gross and wrong and any other bad nasty thing you can think of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punkfiveo Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO....why? Cause thats just gross and wrong and any other bad nasty thing you can think of. Interesting theory. "I disagree because it's gross" doesn't make for a good argument. Aren't church and state supposed to stay away from each other? Yes, and if they were totally seperated, marraige would not be political in any way. Remember, God first created the idea of marriage, not politicians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmid Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 The anti-marraige standpoint is that it goes agianst God's will What if God doesn't exist? What if God does exist, but the church has it wrong, and he isn't against homosexual marriages? and does not contribute population to society And? If a heterosexual man or woman is sterile, they cannot 'contribute population to society' either. Does this mean they should be barred from marrying as well? Also, as wesaynothin has already pointed out, the world is already overpopulated. they go against nature and science and all that jazz I would really like to see what evidence causes you to say this, as the whole idea of marriage is a human invention, and, as such, is against nature and if this was against science, then it would be in some way absolutely impossible for homosexuals to marry, even if it were perfectly legal. I reckon that if the couple in question want to marry, then they should be free to do so. Some people think this is 'gross'. Fine, they're free to think that, but if you do think it's gross, nobody is forcing you to know about it or care. As far as I can see, the only difference between two homosexuals in a long-term relationship and a so-called 'normal' marriage is the gender of the parties involved, so why say that gay and lesbian people should not marry, but people who are straight can? In my view, this is a clear cut case of discrimination based on sexuality, and, as such, makes absolutely no sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmac Posted December 29, 2003 Author Share Posted December 29, 2003 The anti-marraige standpoint is that it goes agianst God's will What if God doesn't exist? What if God does exist, but the church has it wrong, and he isn't against homosexual marriages? Clarification: If the standpoint is defended from the beliefs of an Atheist, then there should be no trouble in homosexual marriages. I personally do not believe in god- and I am indifferent to both sides, as both have failed to procure an argument suprerior to their opponent. I think of the children (adopted children) raised by the married couple. It would be awkward for them to grow up with knowledge of their parents' orientation. Not to say this should by any means be a deciding factor in the issue, though. I suppose I would agree with the anti-marriage side in that it is not a 'productive' marriage, but, then, as White Wolf said, neither are sterile marriages, and the world is already overpopulated. The pro-marriage argument says that it harms no one. This is true. But if a previously hererosexual husband leaves a marriage with children to marry into a homosexual relationship, I believe that is injurious and unhealthy. But, as long as family and friends have no objection, then a homosexual marriage should be a legal event that goes without any raised eyebrows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zmid Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 Clarification: If the standpoint is defended from the beliefs of an Atheist, then there should be no trouble in homosexual marriages. I personally do not believe in god- and I am indifferent to both sides, as both have failed to procure an argument suprerior to their opponent.I would agree with that - I don't have a clue who or what is up there, or if anything is at all. :P I think of the children (adopted children) raised by the married couple. It would be awkward for them to grow up with knowledge of their parents' orientation. I would disagree with that. They would be exposed to homosexuality day in, day out and would regard it as nothing special or unusual. They may find it awkward if they are adopted at a pretty late age (ie early teens), but that's about all. The pro-marriage argument says that it harms no one. This is true. But if a previously hererosexual husband leaves a marriage with children to marry into a homosexual relationship, I believe that is injurious and unhealthy. But it could also be said that this was going to happen even if homosexual marriages were illegal - sooner or later, the wife was bound to find out her husband was gay, and then she may leave him. The only situation this would really apply to would be if the husband was bisexual, and I would say that this would be exactly the same as if the husband was heterosexual and decided to leave his wife for his mistress. But, as long as family and friends have no objection, then a homosexual marriage should be a legal event that goes without any raised eyebrows. Personally, I would go one step further and give homosexuals exactly the same marriage rights as heterosexuals - even if friends and family do have objections, provided they aren't legal ones (ie one of them being married to someone else), then they should still be able to get married. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmac Posted December 29, 2003 Author Share Posted December 29, 2003 I think of the children (adopted children) raised by the married couple. It would be awkward for them to grow up with knowledge of their parents' orientation. I would disagree with that. They would be exposed to homosexuality day in, day out and would regard it as nothing special or unusual. They may find it awkward if they are adopted at a pretty late age (ie early teens), but that's about all. Right. I had meant kids who has been previously exposed to heterosexual realtionships and who thought his foster parents' relationship was unhealthy. In a perfect world, the issue of peers picking on a kid with homosexual parents would be nonexistent. As it is, the problem remains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iluventi Posted December 29, 2003 Share Posted December 29, 2003 I see nothing wrong with it, if it makes the 2 parties involved happy, what could be wrong with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.