Go to first unread
Back
to top
Extending marraige to gays ONLY is illogical.
Watch this thread
TheGuy117
Badges:
14
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Why is it right that the line for marriage is moved to include gays but not to include those practicing pedophilia, incest, bestiality etc.
All rules in society are arbitrary at some level. Restricting marriage to only straight couples puts this arbitrary line at the theoretical ability to reproduce. But when this line is moved to include gays, simply because now it's apparently a "right" to marry who you want for the sake of happiness then drawing the line at gay and straight marriage is more stupid than only restricting marriage to straight couples.
For the sake of not encouraging the practices listed top, in my opinion marriage should be between straight couples only.
Your thoughts?
All rules in society are arbitrary at some level. Restricting marriage to only straight couples puts this arbitrary line at the theoretical ability to reproduce. But when this line is moved to include gays, simply because now it's apparently a "right" to marry who you want for the sake of happiness then drawing the line at gay and straight marriage is more stupid than only restricting marriage to straight couples.
For the sake of not encouraging the practices listed top, in my opinion marriage should be between straight couples only.
Your thoughts?
7
reply
Retrodiction
Badges:
19
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report
#2
(Original post by TheGuy117)
Why is it right that the line for marriage is moved to include gays but not to include those practicing pedophilia, incest, bestiality etc.
All rules in society are arbitrary at some level. Restricting marriage to only straight couples puts this arbitrary line at the theoretical ability to reproduce. But when this line is moved to include gays, simply because now it's apparently a "right" to marry who you want for the sake of happiness then drawing the line at gay and straight marriage is more stupid than only restricting marriage to straight couples.
For the sake of not encouraging the practices listed top, in my opinion marriage should be between straight couples only.
Your thoughts?
Why is it right that the line for marriage is moved to include gays but not to include those practicing pedophilia, incest, bestiality etc.
All rules in society are arbitrary at some level. Restricting marriage to only straight couples puts this arbitrary line at the theoretical ability to reproduce. But when this line is moved to include gays, simply because now it's apparently a "right" to marry who you want for the sake of happiness then drawing the line at gay and straight marriage is more stupid than only restricting marriage to straight couples.
For the sake of not encouraging the practices listed top, in my opinion marriage should be between straight couples only.
Your thoughts?
Take the voting system as an analogy. It was once the case that only white landowning males over a certain age were allowed to vote. Opponents of equality in voting rights would argue that in order to prevent voting rights being extended to children, dogs etc, we must block any and all extensions of the rights in place at that specific time. A neutral stance is always best in approaching these issues - it allows clarity of thought.
0
reply
yo radical one
Badges:
6
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#3
Report
#3
Agreed, if marriage exists it should be open to all unions, polygamous, between a person and an object anything
Of course there should be the possibility of a monogamy contract if either party is unwilling to marry if the other has plans for a number two
Of course there should be the possibility of a monogamy contract if either party is unwilling to marry if the other has plans for a number two
1
reply
GoldGhost
Badges:
14
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#4
Report
#4
(Original post by TheGuy117)
Why is it right that the line for marriage is moved to include gays but not to include those practicing pedophilia, incest, bestiality etc.
All rules in society are arbitrary at some level. Restricting marriage to only straight couples puts this arbitrary line at the theoretical ability to reproduce. But when this line is moved to include gays, simply because now it's apparently a "right" to marry who you want for the sake of happiness then drawing the line at gay and straight marriage is more stupid than only restricting marriage to straight couples.
For the sake of not encouraging the practices listed top, in my opinion marriage should be between straight couples only.
Your thoughts?
Why is it right that the line for marriage is moved to include gays but not to include those practicing pedophilia, incest, bestiality etc.
All rules in society are arbitrary at some level. Restricting marriage to only straight couples puts this arbitrary line at the theoretical ability to reproduce. But when this line is moved to include gays, simply because now it's apparently a "right" to marry who you want for the sake of happiness then drawing the line at gay and straight marriage is more stupid than only restricting marriage to straight couples.
For the sake of not encouraging the practices listed top, in my opinion marriage should be between straight couples only.
Your thoughts?
0
reply
chocolatesauce
Badges:
18
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#5
TheGuy117
Badges:
14
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#6
(Original post by GoldGhost)
People in prison are able to marry, including those who have committed awful crimes. Do you disagree with this, if the couple is heterosexual?
People in prison are able to marry, including those who have committed awful crimes. Do you disagree with this, if the couple is heterosexual?
0
reply
TheGuy117
Badges:
14
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#7
(Original post by chocolatesauce)
gay marriage is not hurting anyone
gay marriage is not hurting anyone
0
reply
Lady Comstock
Badges:
14
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#8
Report
#8
(Original post by TheGuy117)
Why is it right that the line for marriage is moved to include gays but not to include those practicing pedophilia, incest, bestiality etc.
Why is it right that the line for marriage is moved to include gays but not to include those practicing pedophilia, incest, bestiality etc.
All rules in society are arbitrary at some level. Restricting marriage to only straight couples puts this arbitrary line at the theoretical ability to reproduce.
0
reply
dragonkeeper999
Badges:
17
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#9
Report
#9
The key difference is that LGBT couples are consenting adults, and therefore should have the same rights as other consenting, but straight, adults.
Paedophillia is wrong because a child is less able to give informed consent, and so such marriages would not be appropriate. Incest is considered wrong because of the potential for genetic issues within children conceived from such couples - which is not fair on the child. Bestiality is considered wrong because an animal is unable to give informed consent.
I have not yet met a good reason against equal marriage, and somehow I doubt I ever will.
Paedophillia is wrong because a child is less able to give informed consent, and so such marriages would not be appropriate. Incest is considered wrong because of the potential for genetic issues within children conceived from such couples - which is not fair on the child. Bestiality is considered wrong because an animal is unable to give informed consent.
I have not yet met a good reason against equal marriage, and somehow I doubt I ever will.
9
reply
chocolatesauce
Badges:
18
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#10
Report
#10
(Original post by TheGuy117)
How is this even remotely an argument? Straight marriage hurts people sometimes and sometimes it doesn't...same with gays as you've said and relationships involving pedophilia, incest, bestiality etc.
How is this even remotely an argument? Straight marriage hurts people sometimes and sometimes it doesn't...same with gays as you've said and relationships involving pedophilia, incest, bestiality etc.
0
reply
thesabbath
Badges:
2
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#11
Report
#11
The propaganda phrase "equal marriage" used is of course completely disingenuous since it excludes all sorts of arrangements despite its fluffy name. Marriage was at least well defined before they butted in, now its a nonsense.
2
reply
ckingalt
Badges:
14
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#12
Report
#12
(Original post by TheGuy117)
Why is it right that the line for marriage is moved to include gays but not to include those practicing pedophilia, incest, bestiality etc.
All rules in society are arbitrary at some level. Restricting marriage to only straight couples puts this arbitrary line at the theoretical ability to reproduce. But when this line is moved to include gays, simply because now it's apparently a "right" to marry who you want for the sake of happiness then drawing the line at gay and straight marriage is more stupid than only restricting marriage to straight couples.
For the sake of not encouraging the practices listed top, in my opinion marriage should be between straight couples only.
Your thoughts?
Why is it right that the line for marriage is moved to include gays but not to include those practicing pedophilia, incest, bestiality etc.
All rules in society are arbitrary at some level. Restricting marriage to only straight couples puts this arbitrary line at the theoretical ability to reproduce. But when this line is moved to include gays, simply because now it's apparently a "right" to marry who you want for the sake of happiness then drawing the line at gay and straight marriage is more stupid than only restricting marriage to straight couples.
For the sake of not encouraging the practices listed top, in my opinion marriage should be between straight couples only.
Your thoughts?
2
reply
GoldGhost
Badges:
14
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#13
Report
#13
(Original post by TheGuy117)
I don't really see where you are going with this but no, I would not disagree if they were heterosexual.
I don't really see where you are going with this but no, I would not disagree if they were heterosexual.
0
reply
thesabbath
Badges:
2
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#14
Report
#14
(Original post by GoldGhost)
So you would allow those who are convicted of awful crimes (e.g murder or other heinous crimes) the right to marry? Yet, you would deny two consenting (most likely moral citizens) adults who happen to be of the same gender? Your logic is slightly flawed.
So you would allow those who are convicted of awful crimes (e.g murder or other heinous crimes) the right to marry? Yet, you would deny two consenting (most likely moral citizens) adults who happen to be of the same gender? Your logic is slightly flawed.
0
reply
james22
Badges:
16
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#15
Report
#15
pedophilia-cannot consent.
incest-not the same but I personally don't see much problem with it.
bestiality-cannot consent.
incest-not the same but I personally don't see much problem with it.
bestiality-cannot consent.
0
reply
james22
Badges:
16
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#16
Report
#16
(Original post by thesabbath)
The propaganda phrase "equal marriage" used by the homosexual mafia is of course completely disingenuous since it excludes all sorts of arrangements despite its fluffy name. Marriage was at least well defined before they butted in, now its a nonsense.
The propaganda phrase "equal marriage" used by the homosexual mafia is of course completely disingenuous since it excludes all sorts of arrangements despite its fluffy name. Marriage was at least well defined before they butted in, now its a nonsense.
0
reply
lizlaz350
Badges:
16
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#17
Report
#17
The difference between two gay people marrying them and someone practising paedophilia is that one of the parties in the latter situation would be a child, meaning they're likely being forced or taken advantage of and not truly consenting.
In my family law module, we were discussing whether we should allow adult family members to marry in order to get tax breaks. Sex isn't a requirement of marriage, loads of old straight couple don't have sex, so I can see an argument to allow adult family members tax breaks by getting married, as long as they weren't having sex/reproducing.
As for beasiality... you realise human rights don't apply to animals right?
In my family law module, we were discussing whether we should allow adult family members to marry in order to get tax breaks. Sex isn't a requirement of marriage, loads of old straight couple don't have sex, so I can see an argument to allow adult family members tax breaks by getting married, as long as they weren't having sex/reproducing.
As for beasiality... you realise human rights don't apply to animals right?
0
reply
MostUncivilised
Badges:
3
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#18
Report
#18
(Original post by TheGuy117)
=Restricting marriage to only straight couples puts this arbitrary line at the theoretical ability to reproduce.
=Restricting marriage to only straight couples puts this arbitrary line at the theoretical ability to reproduce.
Try a little harder next time, otherwise you're just making a fool of yourself.
0
reply
TheGuy117
Badges:
14
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#19
(Original post by MostUncivilised)
No it doesn't, because some straight couples are sterile. So basically, your entire post has just been debunked. That, of course, leaves aside the fact that gay couples can reproduce.
Try a little harder next time, otherwise you're just making a fool of yourself.
No it doesn't, because some straight couples are sterile. So basically, your entire post has just been debunked. That, of course, leaves aside the fact that gay couples can reproduce.
Try a little harder next time, otherwise you're just making a fool of yourself.
Try a little harder to read next time, otherwise you're just making a fool of yourself.
0
reply
GoldGhost
Badges:
14
Rep:
?
You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#20
Report
#20
(Original post by thesabbath)
You are approaching this from the wrong standpoint unless you want to continue trying to convince people that 2+2 = 5 (aka man + man = marriage). Call it something else, how about a civil partnership, and there'll be few arguments since we're decadent enough a society to tolerate that it seems.
You are approaching this from the wrong standpoint unless you want to continue trying to convince people that 2+2 = 5 (aka man + man = marriage). Call it something else, how about a civil partnership, and there'll be few arguments since we're decadent enough a society to tolerate that it seems.
I don't understand your 2+2= 5 analogy, please elaborate.
0
reply
X
Quick Reply
