My views on gay mariage

[TheStateIsALie]

Why is gay marriage being legalized such a central issue for the LGBT community? They keep going on about how marriage is all about love... well then, get married! -No one can stop you.

Yeah, why can't they just get married! Nothing is stopping th-ohh...wait..

You can get married without seeking acceptance from the state.

[Psykhronic]

You can, but it's going to do jack shit for financial issues, visitation rights, etc that are heavily tied with marriages recognized by the state.

[kılıç_mehmet]

As most Americans probably know, there is a debate going on right now on whether or not same-sex couples should have the legal privilege to marry. My opinion is that they SHOULD be given this privilege. My reasoning is very simple. The first amendment of the Bill of Rights gives us a few freedoms, one being freedom of religion. I think if our citizens have freedom of religion, than so should our laws. Once you get past religion, same-sex marriage is just a certain group of people not getting a privilege that everyone else DOES get. This has happened before. For example, women were not allowed to vote in presidential elections, colored people had to give up bus seats to white people, etc. They all got their rights in the end, and I believe this should turn out the same.

Good for you my friend. However I'd actually advise you to save the insitution of marriage for people who actually matter, people who can have children, biologically, so that they create families that conform with the idealistic standards for a family.
From what I hear, marriage in the US is being demonized in the eyes of heterosexuals as being an institution that is out of date, that families can be formed from non-married couples, and even a single parent with children can be a "family" of sorts. You're essentially destroying the concept of family for those that marriage was meant to be, while encouraging it for those who it wasn't meant to be.
But hell, it's your own country, and if you want to destroy the age-old institutions of family, and what a marital couple is actually trying to archive, go ahead. Make marriage accessible to people of all sorts of depravities, kins, and etc. Hell, allow polygamy, and the right for people to marry inanimate objects if they wish so, since marriage is so worthless and without a purpose, that gays actually fight for the rights to get married, while their supporters tell things quite the opposite to the heterosexuals: that it's an outdated custom, that you do not need to be married in order to be in love, while encouraging sexual immorality, such as promiscuity, and defending plagues upon society such as prostitution, drugs and etc.

[Psykhronic]

Infertile straight couples can get married and will not have children.

[Cyberman]

Need some more grease on that slippery slope, Mehmet?

[Faith No More]

Pretty soon cats will be marrying dogs. Oh, the depravity!

Mehmet, I cannot have children naturally. Do you object to the fact that I got married?

[kılıç_mehmet]

Infertile straight couples can get married and will not have children.

It doesn't matter friend, them being infertile or not. In that case, they can still adopt a child and raise a family that conforms with the standards that a marriage tries to archive.

Pretty soon cats will be marrying dogs. Oh, the depravity!

Mehmet, I cannot have children naturally. Do you object to the fact that I got married?

I do not. But you really try to miss the point, and instead throw the same lame arguments that you threw at me last time we discussed this.
"Oh what about those who don't want to have children", "what about those who can't have children"?
It doesn't matter, since the main object of the marital union is to form a family, a family brought together from two people who can procreate under normal circumstances.
However, science is there to solve your problems, and if it can't and you still want to raise a child, you can adopt one.
Marriage is there to propagate the traditional family, father, mother, children, this was the purpose when the institution was first created.
As a secondary purpose, it serves for legal share and use of property between the spouses, and of course, after a break up, such as a divorce, or even death, guarantee the economically weaker or living spouse a right on the property that was there before the breakup of the marriage.

However since I believe that gays only wish to marry for the second purpose, that is to share property legally, I believe that a seperate existence can be given to their "unions".
But marriage, no. Family, no. I believe that under no circumstances, should marriage be seperated from its main purpose, that is to create a traditional father-mother children environment, the basis of a family and indeed, the basis of civilisation.

[Psykhronic]

Gays can adopt. Lesbians can use in-vitro fertilization. There is nothing special about straight couples. I fail to see how a mother-father situation is an ideal.

Straights may also marry for financial reasons. Gays may want to marry so both can have guardianship of an adopted child, which would be related to family matters, no?

[Faith No More]

Mehmet, you're just appealing to tradition. Who's to say two gay people couldn't adopt and start a loving family? Can you defend your argument that a man and a woman are required in a family without appealing to tradition? Because society evolves, and many times tradition is found to be inadequate and must be discarded. It is not a defense against gay marriage.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Gays can adopt. Lesbians can use in-vitro fertilization. There is nothing special about straight couples. I fail to see how a mother-father situation is an ideal.

Straights may also marry for financial reasons. Gays may want to marry so both can have guardianship of an adopted child, which would be related to family matters, no?

I believe these are not covered by whatever I defined to be the family that should arise from a marriage. Gays should not adopt. Neither should lesbians be allowed to keep children.
A mother-father situation is ideal, since its the only way to create children. It is the "norm", it is what is engraved into our way of thinking when thinking of a family, you see. It has been so ever since the creation of the concept of family and marriage.

And as I have said, children can grow up in any way, not to mention without having anyone to call "parents". But growing up in the right and socially beneficial way, is for them to have a traditional family, to have a mother and a father, as for them to do the same later on, have a family, with a mother, father, and children.
You on the other hand seek to plant the seeds of confusion and of decay into the family insitution, by proxy, into marriage.
Since I don't live in America, it's not really my place to say to you what to do, or what not to do, but it is my honest opinion that giving gays the legal right to marry will hurt the institution.

And might I add, that I've heard from the people that support gay marriage that they actually believe that gays are more deserving of the institution, while they blame heterosexuals for hurting the institution, they also seem to defend everything that the institution of marriage is against, meaning, children conceived outside of marriage, single-parenting, and cohabitation of couples without marriage, at least for heterosexuals.
I know that I've argued here for pages with people that told me that a marriage is not required for a family, or that my notion of a family, that is, the core family structure, a husband, wife and children, is outdated, although I'm not really sure how they actually claim this.