Illinois to become 15th state to recognize marriage equality

[kılıç_mehmet]

It would seem as though marriage is built on interpretations. In 15 states in my country, homosexual marriages are considered equal in the eyes of the law. You can interpret marriage however you want, but homosexual marriages in those states are treated as equal to my own.

I do not interpret marriage, I simply lay marriage before you as it is. And as it always was. You cannot re-interpret marriage, but you can distort it in a way that it won't be considered marriage any more.

And, funny thing, my marriage has not in any way been harmed by this fact.

And I have not stated that allowing homosexuals to marry would make you divorce your wife, no, but it would harm marriage as a social institution, and as an institution that is the basis of the family, by incorporating people that are not a part of the said institutions. And therefore, society will suffer, and moral decay is on the rise. As optimistic mysanthrope a few replies back naively suggested, even heterosexual marriages are being slowly eroded by the moral decay of our times, and liberals, not concerned about the real family institution arising from the union of a man and a woman, are pushing for gays to have a moral upper hand, as though as they were "more deserving" than those who actually upheld the marital institution and created its traditions throughout the millenia, the traditional, heterosexual couples.
In many ways, I see this as an attack on the marital institution, and therefore, society itself.

Again, there are 15 United States in which marriage is now officially no longer only about child rearing. Because, in practice, it never was just about child rearing. And, it's no less about child rearing now because straight people are in no way hindered from raising children, which makes opposition to gay marriage on this basis stupid to an extraordinary degree.

No it is, else you wouldn't be pushing for gay adoption and surrogacy.
No orphanage would give out a child to a non-married couple, would they. As for surrogacy, it has not been turned into a large-scale business yet, so gays must turn to orphanages.
Besides, you cannot hinder the people who have a monopoly on the power of creating children in the common sense, no you cannot, though you can make it look worthless, as it won't matter anymore if a child grows up within a normal, healthy family that consists of the people that were responsible with its creation, but rather in many alternative types of "families". And they want these to become the norm, while assaulting the norm of the traditional family.

And it's not, now. For a reason. Marriage has no singular, objective definition and that doesn't change just because you've arbitrarily decided otherwise.

Well, the definition of marriage is strongly tied to its purpose, and without its purpose, it has no definition. As I had said before, you want marriage to be devoid of a definition so you can leave it up to individuals to interpret it as they want to. And the state must agree without any regards to the social importance of marriage, and yield before the demands of fringe groups, to define marriage as they will, and force the authorities to give it a legal status.
Of course, all under the name of liberty, and freedom. Freedom to destroy one of society's most fundamental institutions.

Civilization will in no way be impaired by people marrying and not having children. It's hardly as if the world is facing an underpopulation crisis, for fuck's sake.

And again you strike at the heterosexual marriage. The whole point of marriage is to restrict procreation into a stable and safe environment, bound by a social and legal contract.
Then why should heterosexual couples get married?
This answer is simple, to get "legal benefits", its not about love, its about materialism. Its about legally sharing property, and getting it split during the breakup. Is there any other reason? Love? As Violet stated in the previous pages, you can be in love without getting married.
And now you deprived it of its major purpose of gracing society with the next generations.

How will gay people marrying stop straight people from having children?

They can't, because they(straight people) are the only ones who can have chidlren. But as they create children, naturally, they should they be the ones to look after them. They should be the ones who raise them. These were the values that were espoused by the marriage we knew, that a child needs a father and a mother, and it indeed does, as otherwise, it cannot exist in the first place.
But you want a natural process to be ignored, and give people who are unable to create children, the right to parenthood. You essentially deprive any concepts of parenthood that are the basis of society of any meaning.
Just as marriage, parenthood was something that was exclusive to a man and a woman.
And what exactly was wrong with that one? But this is what it was all about. Because parenthood, is a revered, sacred concept. You cannot deprive it of its sactity, even if you try to. You can claim not to recognize the sanctity of marriage, but you cannot deny the sanctity of parenthood.
As you can't deny it, you want to desecrate it. You want it to be available to people that are irrelevant to the concept, just as marriage.
What exactly is so wrong with the traditional concepts of marriage and parenthood, which have been the basis of nearly every civilisation, that you want to change it according to the whims and fancies of a group of individuals that walk the back-alleys of society to live out their lifestyles?

So, you've decided these things are important. Does that mean that the traditions of nomads are wrong and inferior?

Well, my people are descendants of nomads, though not the paleothic kind. We had tents and livestock. And well, we do still respect and revere our nomadic ancestors, and look up to them for guidance. They have formed the basis of our family values, and our morals, our culture and our traditions.
So did the paleothic hunter gatherhers form the basis of the first settled populations. And even though they were primitive, and lacked many of the moral concepts that we have developed until today, they were aware that this homosexual marriage and parenthood garbage was irrelevant and, pardon me, quite stupid, as their settled successors designed marriage and family to encompass heterosexual couples only.

Extending equality to all individuals, rather than trying to exclude them from society for arbitrary reasons, is of undeniable benefit to everybody.

Equality is only for equals. In terms of nature, they are not equal. In terms of parenthood, they are not equal. In terms of marriage, they are not equal. They are not equal. This is as to raise funds for a man who has never worked in his life, in order to buy him a Ferrari. Then he can be equal with the guy who worked for his Ferrari.

It really doesn't impress me that you dodged the questions and justified your cowardice in the stupidest way possible.

I do not dodge questions. You made reference to something else that was unrelated to this topic.