My views on gay mariage

[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?

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.

Fascist, much? Taking away children because GAAAAY is needlessly restrictive.

And do not misrepresent my point. I do not seek to plant seeds of confusion. I seek equality. And please give evidence that gays will destroy marriage. My state was the first to legalize gay marriage in the US - nothing happened except gays marrying.

[kılıç_mehmet]

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.

Well, I'm appealing to tradition, a set number of values that have been passed from generation to generation that is propagated by mimicry of the previous generation.
But what are you appealing to?
Me appealing to tradition is perfectly logical, as the institution of marriage is in the same way, nothing more than a tradition that has been given a legal and social aspect by the government and people.
Cohabitation and children born from that union are said to be "sanctioned by public" if they occur with a marriage, which is the reason why the government also found it acceptable to protect it by laws.
As you see, the institution of marriage is one that depends on traditions. The way a marriage is enacted, roles within a marriage, and of course, rituals and family bonds within a marriage are entirely dependent on tradition. In most parts of the world, said traditions are generally alike. A marriage is announced, people come to congratulate the pair that is about to be married, a feast or some sort of celebration is held to celebrate the union, and either a government official or a man of special importance within the public such as a priest, imam, witch doctor, shaman or someone else comes to oversee it. These are all traditions passed from generation to generation. So under which context do you blame me for appealing to tradition?


It is a valid, and indeed, a solid defense.

[Psykhronic]

Appeal to tradition is a fallacy, so no your argument is not built on logic.

[kılıç_mehmet]

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.

Fascist, much? Taking away children because GAAAAY is needlessly restrictive.

And do not misrepresent my point. I do not seek to plant seeds of confusion. I seek equality. And please give evidence that gays will destroy marriage. My state was the first to legalize gay marriage in the US - nothing happened except gays marrying.

Equality? If gays were, just as straigh couples, able to bear children, I'd say that they are equal. They're not.
So do not expect equal treatment for two cases that do not equal eachother. Gays cannot reproduce with eachother. Straight people can.
And it is them who should have the privilage to marry and form a family due to this fact.

---

Appeal to tradition is a fallacy, so no your argument is not built on logic.

That's the only thing you can say? Fallacy?
Perhaps you should point that perception towards marriage itself, and claim that it is unnecessery, since it also built on tradition as I've explained before, and by that, illogical.

[Psykhronic]

By your logic infertile couples still should not be able to marry, because under normal circumstances they cannot bear children - their "normal" is infertility.

Also, marriage is and has changed time and time again and has varied across cultures and localities. Here in the US, commonly you marry someone you love to solidify a bond.

EDIT:

That's the only thing you can say? Fallacy?
Perhaps you should point that perception towards marriage itself, and claim that it is unnecessery, since it also built on tradition as I've explained before, and by that, illogical.

Actually I have no plans to get married but I do not expect the same from others. Marriage is built on economic factors as well as tradition, I have no problems with people marrying for either or both reasons. What I have a problem with is dictating others lives over stupid arbitrary bullshit.

[kılıç_mehmet]

By your logic infertile couples still should not be able to marry, because under normal circumstances they cannot bear children - their "normal" is infertility.

Also, marriage is and has changed time and time again and has varied across cultures and localities. Here in the US, commonly you marry someone you love to solidify a bond.

Nope, for as you probably know, infertility was in the past, considered to be a valid excuse to divorce a spouse. AS you probably know, The Church of England has indeed severed its connections with Rome solely for the purpose of it. Indeed, this shows that marriage is there to provide people with an environment under which they bring forth children, sanctioned by public eyes.
The fact that one of the spouses turns out to be infertile doesn't change that fact.
They are still applicable to the institution, for if they really do want children, they still adopt one and propagate the said institution by raising children within it, even if it's biologically not their child.
As for gays, they cannot propagate the institution for they do not fit the said standards, they are unable to procreate by default, and are known by the public to be unable to do so, and therefore, not applicable to the said institution of family that is built on marriage.
So please stop using the argument of infertile couples. Infertility is a tragedy for anyone by whom it's stricken by, and they also don't serve as a leverage for your arguments by any shot.

Marriage has not changed. As the current insitution of marriage in the US didn't come from nowhere(it was obviously brought by the immigrants, and of course, it was existent amongst the natives of the land, again under the same context of forming a family), it's safe to state that it's bears the same objectives of marriage anywhere else in the world, friend.
Namely, bearing children, and creating an enviroment for those children to grow, the family, therebye creating new generations, something that is required for human existence, don't you think?
However the marriage of gays is nothing more than a farce, enacted in order to normalize homosexuality within public.
This is why gays and their supporters actually put so much value on it, nothing else.

[Psykhronic]

[kılıç_mehmet]

[Psykhronic]

Marriage has tradition. That does not mean tradition should rule marriage. And yeah, I still give a shit that you are saying "NO NOT THE GAYS" because tradition. Thats an excuse to me. People should be able to choose if they accept tradition or not and should not impose it on others.

Prove that there will be problems if gays marry.

[Cyberman]

As ever, I feel deeply soiled after being exposed to this sickening brand of prejudicious nonsense. Sorry and all that, but it takes a very special sort of mind to take something as beautiful as love and marriage and turn it into vomit.