My views on gay mariage

[kılıç_mehmet]

Your starting point is that this is the way it has always been, which is actually something you can't possibly know. Leastwise you are in no better position to speak for what has always been or what is essential about what has always been than anyone else is in.

I can possibly know it as far as it goes back, friend. Other than that, yes true, I cannot go beyond written history, but neither can you. And in that regard, I'd say that written history shows that marriage has been between people of two different sexes.
Obviously I'm not speaking for anything, marriage speaks for itself, does it not?

My starting point is that marriage is the way we establish our families beyond that into which we are born. Pair bonding is the nucleus for formalizing our 'inner circles' going forward at adulthood. (It may be that some folks will prefer a bigger starting unit than a pair but lets leave that to the side for now.) Some may even prefer to live in solitude and we -from both our points of view- do not begrudge them to exercise their preference in this, do we? For others, like my wife and myself, there is no desire to enlarge the inner circle beyond ourselves. We did not marry to provide conditions for raising a child. That was never our intention. I would like to know if you have any problem from your traditional outlook with our arrangement? Should people be allowed to enjoy a married status if our only rationale for joining is the satisfaction it gives us to make and share our lives together?

I do not begrudge you for not wanting a child, though I can't really understand why. Taking up a huge responsibility such as marriage, yet wishing to avoid the responsibility of child care? Having said that, the fact that you avoid having a child in marriage is not really my concern though I'd like to add that you obviously take for granted a gift that some would perhaps kill for(like infertile couples).
Other than that, I still stand by my point that the main purpose of a marital environment is to bear and raise children in a proper manner(in the form that you probably have seen from your own parents). The fact that you don't wish to have children, or can't have children doesn't change the fact that if you do, by either a mistake, or in the form of an adoption, you both share a legal responsibility to look after it, no?

If your traditional view can allow for my wife's and my preference, I surely do not see why two people of the same sex choosing to get together to make and share their lives should matter so much. Some of them at least will want to adopt or pursue children with artificial assistance. My wife and I have intention of doing even that much. We're not worried that the world will run out of people without our contribution and we don't feel we need to have children for our own satisfaction either.

Well, surely I do not approve of the fact that you do not have children, as I'm sure that you'll be a lot more lonelier in your later lives, and will never perhaps have the joy of grandchildren and etc. I am in no position to force you to have children. I can only give you an advice based on my observations on some people who have reached their mids without a child, a decision that they now regret.

I have no problem with two people sharing their lives. But marriage is not just about two people, it's about society as a whole, friend. This is why I put an emphasis on the creation and raising of children, which are the means by which the next generations are created. Marriage is there to provide an environment for these.
Homosexuals as homosexuals have never been in a position to do so, and they obviously are unable to procreate by default. Since they cannot do these, I fail to see why they should be included in a meaningful tradition such as marriage. Other things such as adoption and surrogacy are another matter of discussion, as for example, lesbians can get pregnant via artificial insemination, and can raise the child together, without actually being married. So what is this fuss all about? They simply cannot accept the fact that marriage was not meant for gays. Just as that.


IF their purpose is to simply share wealth and etc. they can be given another form of existence, seperate from marriage. But that's not what it's about, neither do I think it's about love. I think its about gays looking for a way to make themselves more acceptable to the public, as marriage also serves as a way to make relations between a man and a woman "acceptable", they believe that if they can legally "marry" as a man and a woman would, society would hold them in equal regard.

The reason I say your traditional position is improperly supported is that you can't use its being traditional to support the argument that tradition is better. You can use it to justify your own preference, but it gives you no basis to justify imposing your preference on anyone else.

If tradition is not better, why really follow that tradition? If you believe that tradition is bad, you should be able to say the same for marriage, something which is in itself a tradition, which is nothing more than the mimicry of the behavior of previous generations. Marriage is the same. Its rituals, its boundaries, and its social and legal connections are based on tradition. And tradition holds that its between a man and a woman for the sake of reproduction. Why do you still think that personal preference does have a role in this?
If so try creating some other form of insitution that is free of social and legal bonds, and call it marriage, I don't care, but real marriage was not meant for gays, or some other form of whatever people desire, three men and four women, or etc.

---

You're so full of yourself, thinking that you disrespect and ridicule me with using a smiley, instead of a proper reply to points you disagree about.

What's the point? You ignore them anyway.

I surely don't. I value your opinions, they give me a chance to test my own ideas by hearing about another.