Gay marriage
Scroll to see replies
If I ever see a gay couple getting married in a church, I will laugh my head off.
What is marriage any way, it's just a made up, old fashioned custom, which will probably die out eventually.
What is marriage any way, it's just a made up, old fashioned custom, which will probably die out eventually.
Original post by sparrowhawk4
Actually, I did read that. Note that the quote you provided says specifically:
"It is generally accepted that a really “good” (stable, harmonious,
warm, understanding, open to each other’s needs) two-adult family
clearly is more advantageous for a child’s general happiness and for
his growing up than is a one-adult family."
Note the use of one-adult and two-adult. That is what this author is looking at. It is unhelpful to bring it into this discussion, because it only considers the cases of having a mother and father, or just having a mother. It is impossible to separate as factors, in this scenario, of the lack of a father or the lack of a parent.
If you can provide me with a paper that directly compares the upbringing of children of same-sex and opposite-sex couples, then I will gladly discuss it with you.
Also, the person who wrote that paper misspelt the word father at one point. Take from that what you will
"It is generally accepted that a really “good” (stable, harmonious,
warm, understanding, open to each other’s needs) two-adult family
clearly is more advantageous for a child’s general happiness and for
his growing up than is a one-adult family."
Note the use of one-adult and two-adult. That is what this author is looking at. It is unhelpful to bring it into this discussion, because it only considers the cases of having a mother and father, or just having a mother. It is impossible to separate as factors, in this scenario, of the lack of a father or the lack of a parent.
If you can provide me with a paper that directly compares the upbringing of children of same-sex and opposite-sex couples, then I will gladly discuss it with you.
Also, the person who wrote that paper misspelt the word father at one point. Take from that what you will
So your primary (non) contention has already been addressed in my previous post and now you're challenging the validity of a university paper that is thoroughly referenced because of a few typos......
I think it's time I went and got something to eat, TSR is boring today.
Original post by CelticSymphony67
Homosexuality is not incest though chief. My cousin is a lesbian, and she is going to marry her partner here next year. No one has got any right to force their religious or personal views on any other person.
But does the same principle apply? Two brothers should be allowed to marry each other, because no one has the right to force their religious or personal views on them?
After all, the only difference between homosexuality and homosexual incest is that in one scenario, the two people are related. So surely you must either:
- Explain why the fact that they are related is of any relevance to whether the marriage should be permitted or not;
- Support homosexual incestuous marriages just as much as you would support non-incestuous homosexual marriage;
- Be holding inconsistent views on the subject
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Joeman560
Pull the pants down and have a look.
And there are plenty of cases where its not that obvious.
Original post by scapepower
Gender is more absolute and universal than race. Humans can be a mix of all kinds of races, but you will 99.9% of the time always have either a male or a female.
Sex =/= gender. Sex is biological, whereas gender is socially constructed.
More importantly, marriage should be an individual, personal matter; why should what other people are matter?
Original post by scapepower
It should be more practical than that. Marriage is often about children, having that legal frame work, commitment, sacrifice.
Our media and unrealistic movies want to portray it as something it is not - hence the high divorce rate in the west.
Our media and unrealistic movies want to portray it as something it is not - hence the high divorce rate in the west.
that's utter crap. Marriage is no longer necessary, you can have a family without the mam or dad being married. and that in no way demonstrates that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Original post by tazarooni89
But does the same principle apply? Two brothers should be allowed to marry each other, because no one has the right to force their religious or personal views on them?
After all, the only difference between homosexuality and homosexual incest is that in one scenario, the two people are related. So surely you must either:
- Explain why the fact that they are related is of any relevance to whether the marriage should be permitted or not;
- Support homosexual incestuous marriages just as much as you would support non-incestuous homosexual marriage;
- Be holding inconsistent views on the subject
After all, the only difference between homosexuality and homosexual incest is that in one scenario, the two people are related. So surely you must either:
- Explain why the fact that they are related is of any relevance to whether the marriage should be permitted or not;
- Support homosexual incestuous marriages just as much as you would support non-incestuous homosexual marriage;
- Be holding inconsistent views on the subject
In this country, homosexuality is perfectly legal, and soon the law is to be changed so that two gay men or two gay women can marry. The reason brothers are not allowed to have a sexual relationship, is because it is incest. Homosexuality is not incest. If people have a problem with homosexuality, then that is fine, but to have laws against it, which a gay marriage ban is, is simply wrong in this day and age.
To compare Incest to Homosexuality is absurd.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by scapepower
There is no such thing as an opposite race either. White people are often pink and black people often brown.
And by that logic there is no such thing as 'opposite' biological sex; there are plenty of documented cases where things are not that simple.
Original post by aldridge99
Black and white is not the issue that's a persons ethnicity nothing to do with biological opposites.
You're saying skin colour isn't biological?
Gay marriage is wrong, not natural and its being given the light of day to earn some votes for upcoming elections, nothing more
Marriage of any kind isn't 'natural', it's a social construct.
Also, naturalistic fallacy.
Of course it should be allowed, even if I weren't biased. We live in the 21st century now; breeding through the confirmation of love in marriage is not a problem we have anymore (if anything, the opposite!), scientific studies have proven a thousand fold that there are no significant detriments to gay adoption for the child, and given the growing number of people who are rejecting religion, those people should not be withheld from this right just because a few people think its a good idea to keep it between a man and a woman for tradition's sake.
It is impossible to say that gay marriage will dilute the meaning of marriage; frankly, if anything, it's the heterosexual abuse of marriage through divorce (not that I have a problem therewith) that has weakened marriage from a religious perspective. Also, given the fact that I certainly would never have chosen to be gay, the fact that some people think I could simply 'choose' to marry a woman is an idea expelled to the 20th century, and is in no way a legitimate argument.
More weddings mean more money is being spent, and the masses of potential adoptees can be reduced and having improved lives by at least having two parents that love them instead of no parents at all. It is indeed true that domestic violence can happen anywhere - but on that logic, we would stop any parents from procreating/adopting on the fear that they would definitely affect the psychological/physical development of a child.
And last but not least, this is absolutely none of the conservative anti-gay marriage people's business whatsoever. Protecting the meaning of marriage is selfishness of the highest order, when there are a significant proportion of people, not just LGB people, who are against that notion. Protecting it only deepens the hypocrisy of right-wing morals, which criticise left-wing social politics as utopian and idealistic when it is the very 'protection' of this institution which promotes 'perfection' and ignores the realities for many other people in our society that do not fit into right-wing perfection.
It is impossible to say that gay marriage will dilute the meaning of marriage; frankly, if anything, it's the heterosexual abuse of marriage through divorce (not that I have a problem therewith) that has weakened marriage from a religious perspective. Also, given the fact that I certainly would never have chosen to be gay, the fact that some people think I could simply 'choose' to marry a woman is an idea expelled to the 20th century, and is in no way a legitimate argument.
More weddings mean more money is being spent, and the masses of potential adoptees can be reduced and having improved lives by at least having two parents that love them instead of no parents at all. It is indeed true that domestic violence can happen anywhere - but on that logic, we would stop any parents from procreating/adopting on the fear that they would definitely affect the psychological/physical development of a child.
And last but not least, this is absolutely none of the conservative anti-gay marriage people's business whatsoever. Protecting the meaning of marriage is selfishness of the highest order, when there are a significant proportion of people, not just LGB people, who are against that notion. Protecting it only deepens the hypocrisy of right-wing morals, which criticise left-wing social politics as utopian and idealistic when it is the very 'protection' of this institution which promotes 'perfection' and ignores the realities for many other people in our society that do not fit into right-wing perfection.
Original post by contrapositive
I haven't actually made a point against any kind of marriage, I merely pointed out the fact that the argument that there is an inequality is invalid.
Homosexuals are not able to marry someone compatible with their sexual orientation. That is inequality. Your attempt at trying to be clever is over, sir.
Original post by tazarooni89
But does the same principle apply? Two brothers should be allowed to marry each other, because no one has the right to force their religious or personal views on them?
After all, the only difference between homosexuality and homosexual incest is that in one scenario, the two people are related. So surely you must either:
- Explain why the fact that they are related is of any relevance to whether the marriage should be permitted or not;
- Support homosexual incestuous marriages just as much as you would support non-incestuous homosexual marriage;
- Be holding inconsistent views on the subject
After all, the only difference between homosexuality and homosexual incest is that in one scenario, the two people are related. So surely you must either:
- Explain why the fact that they are related is of any relevance to whether the marriage should be permitted or not;
- Support homosexual incestuous marriages just as much as you would support non-incestuous homosexual marriage;
- Be holding inconsistent views on the subject
If two brothers both over legal age want to get married, then yeah, I'd be fine with that. I'd find it a bit weird, yes, but thinking something is weird isn't a reason to ban it.
Original post by CelticSymphony67
In this country, homosexuality is perfectly legal, and soon the law is to be changed so that two gay men or two gay women can marry. The reason brothers are not allowed to have a sexual relationship, is because it is incest. Homosexuality is not incest. If people have a problem with homosexuality, then that is fine, but to have laws against it, which a gay marriage ban is, is simply wrong in this day and age.
Yes, I know it's incest - but why does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to marry?
Why couldn't I say the same thing - to have a problem with homosexual incest is fine, but to have laws against it in this day and age is simply wrong?
To compare Incest to Homosexuality is absurd.
As I said, the only difference between homosexuality and homosexual incest is the fact that in one scenario, the two people are related to each other. Such a comparison is only absurd if you can explain why the fact that they are related is of any relevance to the discussion.
Of course they're not exactly the same thing, but that doesn't mean they're not comparable.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Mad Vlad
Homosexuals are not able to marry someone compatible with their sexual orientation. That is inequality. Your attempt at trying to be clever is over, sir.
Oh it was more than an attempt.
Original post by aari
Why is the love of two homosexual parents different from the love of two heterosexual ones?
It isn't, but the Homophobes and
think otherwise Original post by contrapositive
Oh it was more than an attempt.
That's right. It was an unsuccessful attempt.
Trot on.
Original post by scapepower
Homosexuality is widely seen as immoral due to a set of practical reasons, and hence people are more likely to be averse to it, which would have an effect on the child.
No, it isn't. No, they aren't. No, it wouldn't.
Original post by tazarooni89
Yes, I know it's incest - but why does that mean they shouldn't be allowed to marry?
Why couldn't I say the same thing - to have a problem with homosexual incest is fine, but to have laws against it in this day and age is simply wrong?
As I said, the only difference between homosexuality and homosexual incest is the fact that in one scenario, the two people are related to each other. Such a comparison is only absurd if you can explain why the fact that they are related is of any relevance to the discussion.
Of course they're not exactly the same thing, but that doesn't mean they're not comparable.
Why couldn't I say the same thing - to have a problem with homosexual incest is fine, but to have laws against it in this day and age is simply wrong?
As I said, the only difference between homosexuality and homosexual incest is the fact that in one scenario, the two people are related to each other. Such a comparison is only absurd if you can explain why the fact that they are related is of any relevance to the discussion.
Of course they're not exactly the same thing, but that doesn't mean they're not comparable.
If two brothers want to get married, then that is up to the government to bring in a law to make that legal. If they want to do that (bit weird, but Nowt to do with me), then it has sod all to do with me, just like if two gay guys want to get married. As far as I'm concerned, a bloke can marry a barnyard animal or a
if he wants, I really do not give a hoot!No, comparing homosexuality to incest is really ridiculous.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Mad Vlad
That's right. It was an unsuccessful attempt.
Trot on.
Trot on.
No, I will not 'trot on.' My point has yet to be debunked, so until it is, I have won the argument. I'm a seasoned debater in my school's society you know.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Im gay but a christian
- Husband has never been physically intimate with me
- Being black (Somali), gay and Muslim
- Queer Muslim female
- Why dont women do it??
- Is it weird to be 23 and single?
- Why is religion against sex?
- Figuring it out?
- closeted gay muslim AMA
- Late night talks
- Should I consider an arranged marriage?
- about marriage
- essay help!!!!!!!!! mock on friday
- Forced marriage
- Marriage
- Marriage, Islam
- EPQ help - Murder case
- I'm scared of getting arranged marriage
- Marriage, sex and cheating
- Advice please brothers and sisters (muslim)
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
