North Carolina bans gay marriage

[Napoléon]

Exactly what rights are denied to heterosexual married couples with the legalisation of gay marriage? How does it affect them at all?

This is the main contention I have with anyone who opposes gay marraige. The legislation of gay marraige has absolutely zero affect on anyone but the gays who want to get married. So what the fuck do other people have to do with it.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Exactly what rights are denied to heterosexual married couples with the legalisation of gay marriage? How does it affect them at all?

This is the main contention I have with anyone who opposes gay marraige. The legislation of gay marraige has absolutely zero affect on anyone but the gays who want to get married. So what the fuck do other people have to do with it.

What exactly does the teaching of creationism do with you?
How will this affect you, friend? Why do you oppose it so?
I tell you why I oppose it. It teaches a non-scientific subject beneath a scientific one, creating confusion, and a heavily diluted form of what science really is.

Likewise, with gay marriage. It allows people that were never ever relevant to the purpose of marriage to get married. With married couples having the right to have children, it completely shifts the limits and boundaries of "family" the real concept of family, the one that has been the pillar of society for millenia. It dilutes the concept of marriage. It's very similar in many ways to the teaching of creationism alongside of evolution.

[Tiberius]

What exactly does the teaching of creationism do with you?
How will this affect you, friend? Why do you oppose it so?
I tell you why I oppose it. It teaches a non-scientific subject beneath a scientific one, creating confusion, and a heavily diluted form of what science really is.

I'm not against the teaching of creationism, I'm just against the teaching of it in science class. It affects everyone, since it will confuse students about science.

Likewise, with gay marriage. It allows people that were never ever relevant to the purpose of marriage to get married. With married couples having the right to have children, it completely shifts the limits and boundaries of "family" the real concept of family, the one that has been the pillar of society for millenia. It dilutes the concept of marriage. It's very similar in many ways to the teaching of creationism alongside of evolution.

So, you are also against the marriage of infertile couples or couples who do not want to have children? After all, if the concept of marriage is to have a family and have children, then infertile married couples and married couples who choose not to have a family are also diluting the concept of marriage. You do realise that people can have a family without having sex, right? Adoptions, test tube babies, surrogate mothers, etc. Do all these dilute the concept of marriage / family?

[kılıç_mehmet]

I'm not against the teaching of creationism, I'm just against the teaching of it in science class. It affects everyone, since it will confuse students about science.

But why? How will it affect you personally?
YOU, I mean, you.
It will not, at least directly. You've already finished school. But it will hamper with education itself, right? Another very important pillar of society, education.
Similarly, the dilution of marriage with giving the rights to this privilage to people who never had it to begin with, and in my opinion, do not deserve it, will have a similar effect.

So, you are also against the marriage of infertile couples or couples who do not want to have children?

No, because it does not stand against the nature of marriage. A union of a man and a woman, sanctified by the public, and recognized by the state.
But a marriage without children, as I say, is a lacking marriage. You do not give something back to the society by contributing an individual to the next generation of people. Even via adoption, you simply continue where the real parents of that child have left off.

The marriage of two men or two women are especially prone to cause confusion, and if those people are given the right to be legal parents to a child, the situation will worsen. It will cause the same type of confusion in the mind of that child.

After all, if the concept of marriage is to have a family and have children

Yes, that is it, in it's core. But it also allows couples to share property. And other than that, it gives the people a sense of responsibility of their actions. They are now living in the same institution that their parents have lived out their lives in.
This always had included a man and a woman.

then infertile married couples and married couples who choose not to have a family are also diluting the concept of marriage.

Infertile couples, at least those who wish to have children, are unfortunate people, who can now benefit from science to have children, or adopt one. But gays are already not able to have children from any normal means other than copulating with a woman. Marriage has it's roots in the biological means of producing children friend! Therefore the marriage is defined between a husband and a wife, not between two husbands or two wives.
For those who are proponents of gay marrige-it would certainly be more logical for you to advocate the complete abolition of the insitution of marriage, than to advocate the involvement of homosexuality into it! Because you're advocating the same thing by advocating the addition of homosexuality by writing off the fundamental concepts of marriage!

You do realise that people can have a family without having sex, right?

Really, why would I care? I already said that I am not interested with whether gays stay celibate throughout their marriage or not.

Adoptions, test tube babies, surrogate mothers, etc. Do all these dilute the concept of marriage / family?

No, unless they step on the fundamental concepts of marriage.

For those who do not wish to read through my posts, I'll summarize my key points once more.
I know that marrige is built on fundamental roles, and fundamental rules, boundaries that have been same across the world.
1-Marriage is the basis of the traditional family, which is the pillar that keeps society going. It does this by producing newer generations of people, born into a family, raised in a family, and supported by a family.
2-The fundamental boundary of a marriage has always been between a man and a woman. In certain other places, men married several wives, or women married several husbands, but the concept remained the same. There was a wife, and a husband.
3-Marriage required two things, first and foremost. The approval of the society, and the government. This is why people get married.

[frankiej]

2-The fundamental boundary of a marriage has always been between a man and a woman. In certain other places, men married several wives, or women married several husbands, but the concept remained the same. There was a wife, and a husband.

That isn't true... in Ancient Greece and Rome, Same-sex marriage was celebrated. I am sure there were other places aswell. Definitions change, deal with it.

[kılıç_mehmet]

2-The fundamental boundary of a marriage has always been between a man and a woman. In certain other places, men married several wives, or women married several husbands, but the concept remained the same. There was a wife, and a husband.

That isn't true... in Ancient Greece and Rome, Same-sex marriage was celebrated. I am sure there were other places aswell. Definitions change, deal with it.

That is true. In ancient greece, homosexuality did not even exist in the form we know of it as today. It existed as pederasty. Still no marriage.
Likewise in rome. It existed in forms of lovers, children or grown men, who knows. But still, marrige was especially a union between a man and a woman.
Now let's look at other places on earth. Say, China. Or India.
Or Turkistan. Or Britain. Or Gaul or wherever in the ancient world, homosexuality only existed as a secret vice of powerful people.
Never was it a part of society, and it never will be!
Definitions change, but it does not change according to things that are irrelevant to that definition. Can I change the definition of a neutron by sociological description?
No. Similarly, changing the definition of marriage is not changed by homosexuality.

[Napoléon]

What exactly does the teaching of creationism do with you?

Because when my kids go to school I don't want them learning unsubstantiated bullshit. Duh.

Likewise, with gay marriage. It allows people that were never ever relevant to the purpose of marriage to get married.

Even if I agreed with your point, what the fuck does it have to do with you? Nothing. Does it affect your life if two women are allowed to get married? No.

With married couples having the right to have children

They can adopt children regardless of being married or not. Marraige has nothing to do with their rights to having kids, seen as gay couples can already adopt kids. Mute point.

it completely shifts the limits and boundaries of "family" the real concept of family, the one that has been the pillar of society for millenia. It dilutes the concept of marriage. It's very similar in many ways to the teaching of creationism alongside of evolution.

What a load of absolute tripe.

---

Never was it a part of society, and it never will be!

It has been part of society for many countries in history. Deal with it.

It is part of society now. Deal with it.

It will be part of civilised society for years to come and homosexuals will soon be granted equal rights just like other oppressed minorities in history. Deal with it.

[Tobie]

But why? How will it affect you personally?
YOU, I mean, you.
It will not, at least directly. You've already finished school. But it will hamper with education itself, right? Another very important pillar of society, education.
Similarly, the dilution of marriage with giving the rights to this privilage to people who never had it to begin with, and in my opinion, do not deserve it, will have a similar effect.

So, if some people don't have certain rights, they should never be given them? Women in some countries don't have the right to be educated, so does that mean they never should be?

Even if homosexuality is a disease, at the moment it is incurable, so why shouldn't we allow them to live their life in full? They are losing privileges due to something they are born with.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Because when my kids go to school I don't want them learning unsubstantiated bullshit. Duh.

Same with me, friend. I don't want my kids to be exposed to open homosexuals or homosexuality at any age, if posssible.
And certainly, I don't want my children to be adopted by homosexuals if something should cause the death of mine and my wife.
I don't want my children to think that a marriage constitutes of two wives or two husbands in the future.

Even if I agreed with your point, what the fuck does it have to do with you? Nothing. Does it affect your life if a two women are allowed to get married? No.

And how does it affect your life if they teach creationism in class anyways?
And yes, it affects my life and the life of future generations if the fundamental concepts of marrige are cast down by homosexuals whose motivation is to publicize and normalize their condition.

They can adopt children regardless of being married or not. Marraige has nothing to do with their rights to having kids, seen as gay couples can already adopt kids. Mute point.

Regardless? I believe that if a married couple and a non-married couple would apply for the adoption of a child, the institution would still give the child to the married couple.
True, you don't need to be married to have children. But why would you really have children outside of marriage? Couples who seriously think about having children automatically think of marrige first. As marriage is the first step towards building a solid family, and a social and legal basis for the child to grow up in safety.
Great, gays can adopt children without getting married. I'm not sure what kind of a lunatic would actually entrust a child in the hands of two guys or two gals, but more importantly, who is legally "the father" or "the mother" of that child, if they are not even married?

What a load of absolute tripe.

Nothing else to say? Just call it tripe and be off with it. You know that I'm right, but you can't really say anything else.

It has been part of society for many countries in history. Deal with it.

It is part of society now. Deal with it.

It is a part of society? Even dogs are more of a part of society than homosexuals.

It will be part of civilised society for years to come and homosexuals will soon be granted equal rights just like other oppressed minorities in history. Deal with it.

Wow, they are now a minority, cool. I'd call this "civilized society" of yours rather civilized to the degree of being drowned in depravity, as this is the scale you seem to have adopted to measure how civilized a society is.
I look at the civility of a society on it's traditional, moral and social values.
A society that endorses homosexuals to publicly live out their abnormal behavior is nothing more than a depraved and morally unclean society to moi.

[frankiej]

I might puke.