What's wrong with Gay Marriage?

[sundoobie]

Originally Posted by Maelstroom


Nothing is wrong with it all. Government shouldnt even be involved. Smh at politicians trying to add an amendment to only have traditional marriages. Let people live.
If they are in love, they should marry.

Isn't that the problem though.. .the Govt?  They can marry all they want in your backyard, in Vegas, in a church but they want to be recognized LEGALLY as married by the Govt. 

 

[sundoobie]

Originally Posted by Maelstroom


Nothing is wrong with it all. Government shouldnt even be involved. Smh at politicians trying to add an amendment to only have traditional marriages. Let people live.
If they are in love, they should marry.

Isn't that the problem though.. .the Govt?  They can marry all they want in your backyard, in Vegas, in a church but they want to be recognized LEGALLY as married by the Govt. 

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

Originally Posted by Maelstroom


Nothing is wrong with it all. Government shouldnt even be involved. Smh at politicians trying to add an amendment to only have traditional marriages. Let people live.
If they are in love, they should marry.

Isn't that the problem though.. .the Govt?  They can marry all they want in your backyard, in Vegas, in a church but they want to be recognized LEGALLY as married by the Govt. 

i think he meant that the government shouldn't be involved in terms of infringing on their rights, or lack of rights in this case

 

[do work son]

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

Originally Posted by Maelstroom


Nothing is wrong with it all. Government shouldnt even be involved. Smh at politicians trying to add an amendment to only have traditional marriages. Let people live.
If they are in love, they should marry.

Isn't that the problem though.. .the Govt?  They can marry all they want in your backyard, in Vegas, in a church but they want to be recognized LEGALLY as married by the Govt. 

i think he meant that the government shouldn't be involved in terms of infringing on their rights, or lack of rights in this case

 

[cwrite78]

@ AntBanks81.

for the love of humanity, don't impose your views into your children's minds.

you will just create more hate, which is something this world does not need more of.

 

[cwrite78]

@ AntBanks81.

for the love of humanity, don't impose your views into your children's minds.

you will just create more hate, which is something this world does not need more of.

 

[an dee 51o]

Originally Posted by CWrite78

@ AntBanks81.

for the love of humanity, don't impose your views into your children's minds.

you will just create more hate, which is something this world does not need more of.

Sad thing is that his kids are going to be bigots just like him at least until they're old enough to think for themselves. Hopefully it's not too late.

Originally Posted by AntBanks81

@Scars, she and I have been planning marriage for the past two years. We were set to get married before we found out she as pregnant with twins. As with any relationship, there have been delays. Yes, the children were born prior to marriage. Yes, pre-marital sex is a sin. I see your point in that no sin is greater than another. However, one sin is not the same as a sinful lifestyle.

So you guys just had premarital sex once, correct? Not living a life of sinful premarital sex, of course. Just because you wanted a kid. So you smashed one time and wound up with twins, correct?

 

[an dee 51o]

Originally Posted by CWrite78

@ AntBanks81.

for the love of humanity, don't impose your views into your children's minds.

you will just create more hate, which is something this world does not need more of.

Sad thing is that his kids are going to be bigots just like him at least until they're old enough to think for themselves. Hopefully it's not too late.

Originally Posted by AntBanks81

@Scars, she and I have been planning marriage for the past two years. We were set to get married before we found out she as pregnant with twins. As with any relationship, there have been delays. Yes, the children were born prior to marriage. Yes, pre-marital sex is a sin. I see your point in that no sin is greater than another. However, one sin is not the same as a sinful lifestyle.

So you guys just had premarital sex once, correct? Not living a life of sinful premarital sex, of course. Just because you wanted a kid. So you smashed one time and wound up with twins, correct?

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by CWrite78

@ AntBanks81.

for the love of humanity, don't impose your views into your children's minds.

you will just create more hate, which is something this world does not need more of.

This is the everything that is wrong with humanity at work...people wonder why racist people exist, they have to get it from somewhere and more often than not it is influenced by what they learn at home. Sad.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by CWrite78

@ AntBanks81.

for the love of humanity, don't impose your views into your children's minds.

you will just create more hate, which is something this world does not need more of.

This is the everything that is wrong with humanity at work...people wonder why racist people exist, they have to get it from somewhere and more often than not it is influenced by what they learn at home. Sad.

 

[160jordansdeep]

Originally Posted by NooEra

I cant stand flamboyantly gay males and butch lesbian females. They make me mad uncomfortable.

That being said i wish the best for the homosexual community.

Im too concentrated on myself to be worried homosexuals.

this man is correct 



i cant worry about gay rights 




i got enough of my own problems 

 

[160jordansdeep]

Originally Posted by NooEra

I cant stand flamboyantly gay males and butch lesbian females. They make me mad uncomfortable.

That being said i wish the best for the homosexual community.

Im too concentrated on myself to be worried homosexuals.

this man is correct 



i cant worry about gay rights 




i got enough of my own problems 

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

If and when science breaks down what "gay" actually is & why exactly it develops, it still doesn't forcibly deem society responsible to cater to/accept/support how it is manifested (IE: marriage). I don't think discovering strong genetic vs environmental determining factors should have much bearing on how we view it. It's all relative, what you call an abnormality or deviation, someone may call a defect, flaw or disease state. Science alone cannot enter this realm and adjudicate the differences. That's where a society's moral/ethical values come into play. It would be a mistake to think that not accepting something like marriage between homosexuals means inherently viewing them as inferior beings. It's obvious that the tide has shifted towards supporting it, at least in the West. In other places the attitude is still strongly negative. My question is basically a mirror image of the OP... what makes the view opposing it wrong ? If a society (which collectively defines marriage) deems homosexual marriage as "wrong" (or homosexuality in and of itself as a defect, flaw or disease state) how do they have any less backing to their claim than a society that supports it ?

Before someone makes the "what about if X race is viewed as inferior" argument... this is not an issue of fundamental human rights or again, if the person is even viewed as "equal". It's a question of how society defines the boundaries of what actions human beings make are acceptable/allowed within THAT society. The source for most of the opposition comes from religious belief, so let's look at Islam & Judaism as examples. Both hold that all races/humans are equal. Interracial marriage is acceptable. In a society that ascribes to these teachings, what then should force them to allow gay marriage ? a self-righteous belief that they should, just because that person/society has deemed it "RIGHT" ? I don't think so, homie.

Who stated that science would fix all of this? No one is saying that. It is already assumed by many that even if we did find a "gay gene" this wouldn't solve a lot of the problems individuals have with gay marriage and anything related.

No one stated that if we did find this gene that we would cater towards it, and force society to adopt something. I don't know where you're getting this from.

No scientist would or should ever say that this is a disease. Only uneducated individuals would. A genetic abnormality? Yes, because from a biological stand point you are genetically different, and the phenotypic expression doesn't fit into the natural characteristics that defines life (reproduction fitness).

But, not a disease. A genetic DISEASE is defined as a disease because of the fact that it causes harm to the individuals ability to survive and undergo natural processes. Being gay doesn't do this at all. So it can never be classified as a disease.

I don't mean to be rude if I am coming off that way, it's just that you're stating things that only BAD science does. I just want people to be aware of that. Any true scientist would not do or be okay with what the above poster stated.

But, I do get what you're saying and it is sad that people would think like that.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

If and when science breaks down what "gay" actually is & why exactly it develops, it still doesn't forcibly deem society responsible to cater to/accept/support how it is manifested (IE: marriage). I don't think discovering strong genetic vs environmental determining factors should have much bearing on how we view it. It's all relative, what you call an abnormality or deviation, someone may call a defect, flaw or disease state. Science alone cannot enter this realm and adjudicate the differences. That's where a society's moral/ethical values come into play. It would be a mistake to think that not accepting something like marriage between homosexuals means inherently viewing them as inferior beings. It's obvious that the tide has shifted towards supporting it, at least in the West. In other places the attitude is still strongly negative. My question is basically a mirror image of the OP... what makes the view opposing it wrong ? If a society (which collectively defines marriage) deems homosexual marriage as "wrong" (or homosexuality in and of itself as a defect, flaw or disease state) how do they have any less backing to their claim than a society that supports it ?

Before someone makes the "what about if X race is viewed as inferior" argument... this is not an issue of fundamental human rights or again, if the person is even viewed as "equal". It's a question of how society defines the boundaries of what actions human beings make are acceptable/allowed within THAT society. The source for most of the opposition comes from religious belief, so let's look at Islam & Judaism as examples. Both hold that all races/humans are equal. Interracial marriage is acceptable. In a society that ascribes to these teachings, what then should force them to allow gay marriage ? a self-righteous belief that they should, just because that person/society has deemed it "RIGHT" ? I don't think so, homie.

Who stated that science would fix all of this? No one is saying that. It is already assumed by many that even if we did find a "gay gene" this wouldn't solve a lot of the problems individuals have with gay marriage and anything related.

No one stated that if we did find this gene that we would cater towards it, and force society to adopt something. I don't know where you're getting this from.

No scientist would or should ever say that this is a disease. Only uneducated individuals would. A genetic abnormality? Yes, because from a biological stand point you are genetically different, and the phenotypic expression doesn't fit into the natural characteristics that defines life (reproduction fitness).

But, not a disease. A genetic DISEASE is defined as a disease because of the fact that it causes harm to the individuals ability to survive and undergo natural processes. Being gay doesn't do this at all. So it can never be classified as a disease.

I don't mean to be rude if I am coming off that way, it's just that you're stating things that only BAD science does. I just want people to be aware of that. Any true scientist would not do or be okay with what the above poster stated.

But, I do get what you're saying and it is sad that people would think like that.

 

[back1ntheday]

Originally Posted by Maelstroom


Nothing is wrong with it all. Government shouldnt even be involved. Smh at politicians trying to add an amendment to only have traditional marriages. Let people live.
If they are in love, they should marry.

quoted for emphasis. how banning gay marriage is not a clear violation of the first amendment is beyond me. if a particular church doesn't want to marry a gay couple then so be it, but not being able to get a marriage license
is another story.

 

[back1ntheday]

Originally Posted by Maelstroom


Nothing is wrong with it all. Government shouldnt even be involved. Smh at politicians trying to add an amendment to only have traditional marriages. Let people live.
If they are in love, they should marry.

quoted for emphasis. how banning gay marriage is not a clear violation of the first amendment is beyond me. if a particular church doesn't want to marry a gay couple then so be it, but not being able to get a marriage license
is another story.

 

[|A-Man|]

Premarital sex is a sin just like homosexuality..... and murder.

 

[|A-Man|]

Premarital sex is a sin just like homosexuality..... and murder.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Last time I checked we live in a multi-religious society, I'm not speaking for a muslim country that subscribes to sharia law (because honestly it's going to take centuries of undoing to see any human progress in those parts of the world). This IS an issue of fundamental human rights, you feel as tho it isn't because as a straight male it's something you probably take for granted. We don't live in the Ukraine or Iran, gays should be allowed to get married in any church or religious institution that would entertain it. Or at the very least be granted civil unions.


The irony of needing "Scientific" approval to justify people getting equal treatment. Reminds me of the lengths eugenics went and still goes to prove black people as less of human beings and deserving of hardship. I am a human being should be enough, unfortunately it isn't.

Exactly, only addressing the science part of your post tkthafm, (I know what you were trying to say and that you agree with what I'm saying too) it seemed like through your post you could give ammunition to people who attack science.

I just want to clarify like what Anton is saying above that, that would be BAD science, like eugenics. So becareful with what you say cause people might think you agree with or are giving understanding to the views that you're posting. Like justifying the act of forcing beliefs, societal action, and moral/ethical views with science. I know you don't agree with doing that, but it seems like you're giving understanding/accepting people who do, which is wrong.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by tkthafm

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Last time I checked we live in a multi-religious society, I'm not speaking for a muslim country that subscribes to sharia law (because honestly it's going to take centuries of undoing to see any human progress in those parts of the world). This IS an issue of fundamental human rights, you feel as tho it isn't because as a straight male it's something you probably take for granted. We don't live in the Ukraine or Iran, gays should be allowed to get married in any church or religious institution that would entertain it. Or at the very least be granted civil unions.


The irony of needing "Scientific" approval to justify people getting equal treatment. Reminds me of the lengths eugenics went and still goes to prove black people as less of human beings and deserving of hardship. I am a human being should be enough, unfortunately it isn't.

Exactly, only addressing the science part of your post tkthafm, (I know what you were trying to say and that you agree with what I'm saying too) it seemed like through your post you could give ammunition to people who attack science.

I just want to clarify like what Anton is saying above that, that would be BAD science, like eugenics. So becareful with what you say cause people might think you agree with or are giving understanding to the views that you're posting. Like justifying the act of forcing beliefs, societal action, and moral/ethical views with science. I know you don't agree with doing that, but it seems like you're giving understanding/accepting people who do, which is wrong.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by gambit215

To the ppl who support marriage between same sex couples

Should brothers and sisters be able to get married?
What about father and daughter?
Mother and Son?

As long as they are over 18, and they consent, its all good right?

Just a question, try not to look too deep into it, just want to see how people feel about incest. Are we not denying their "Love" for each other?

I think both hetero and #*%* everything comes down to sex, whos allowed to get down?

BTW, Raised Catholic, really could care less if Homosexuals get together and have unions.

How many brothers and sisters? Mothers and sons? Do you know want to get married.

Brothers and sisters=Im ok with

Parent and child-potential for abuse is too great.....it would raise a lot of questions. For a father to marry his daughter it would potentially mean a history of sexual abuse starting when she was a child. This is not consent.

From a biological stand point I would certainly NOT advise because incest causes genetic abnormalities and disease to arise in offspring.

But, just because I know this fact doesn't mean I would force anyone to not do this. As a scientist you find out the facts and lay them on the table. Allowing anyone to do as they see fit with them, as long as they aren't causing harm.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by gambit215

To the ppl who support marriage between same sex couples

Should brothers and sisters be able to get married?
What about father and daughter?
Mother and Son?

As long as they are over 18, and they consent, its all good right?

Just a question, try not to look too deep into it, just want to see how people feel about incest. Are we not denying their "Love" for each other?

I think both hetero and #*%* everything comes down to sex, whos allowed to get down?

BTW, Raised Catholic, really could care less if Homosexuals get together and have unions.

How many brothers and sisters? Mothers and sons? Do you know want to get married.

Brothers and sisters=Im ok with

Parent and child-potential for abuse is too great.....it would raise a lot of questions. For a father to marry his daughter it would potentially mean a history of sexual abuse starting when she was a child. This is not consent.

From a biological stand point I would certainly NOT advise because incest causes genetic abnormalities and disease to arise in offspring.

But, just because I know this fact doesn't mean I would force anyone to not do this. As a scientist you find out the facts and lay them on the table. Allowing anyone to do as they see fit with them, as long as they aren't causing harm.

 

[tkthafm]

Why would it be wrong or incorrect to classify homosexuality as a disease or disorder ? It interferes with normal sexual activity for reproduction. This is why I say it's all relative. One guy says "normal deviation" another says "flaw/defect" (if you would prefer that to "disease"). How exactly is one "wrong" ? Which was the point of my post, not to attack science, but to show that science can't adjudicate here; and in comes personal/societal values. I'm aware of the horrors of eugenics and other misuses of "science" - but I don't think a society rejecting gay marriage is comparable to that, or inherently means that society doesn't see gays as equals. If a society establishes a certain definition for marriage, and this does not extend to gays, I don't see the injustice. 
One's personal belief that something like marriage to the same sex is an inalienable human right that should exist everywhere on Earth does not make it so. Of course the counter-argument is that things like slavery were once more widely held to be "OK" .... but this is a poor argument that does not mean gay marriage specifically must therefore to be an inherent human right (akin to life/freedom etc). So again, the mere desire of gays to marry doesn't forcibly deem a society responsible to cater to/accept/support/allow it. In more and more locations society is accommodating/expanding definitions to allow it, due to changes in their own values/beliefs/attitudes. To then take these views and claim a society or individual which holds opposing views is "wrong" because they don't agree and that your view (ex: gay marriage being a human right) is superior is silly when their counter claims (due to THEIR own views/definitions) hold just as much weight as your own. To take it a step further, you can even claim that if somehow the act of marriage between homosexuals was an inherent right given at birth, and the two were to somehow marry in a society that doesn't allow for it (doesn't make sense since marriage is a societal construct) - it doesn't mean that society is then forced to abandon their personal or religious values and be forced to accept/accommodate the marriage. If anything, doing so would arguably be infringing on THEIR rights. 
Let's say a Muslim man felt it was his inalienable human right, given to him at birth, to have the ability to marry 4 wives (mutual consent, obviously). Why is the US, or any society for that matter, not suddenly forced to accept & accommodate this "human right" ? Any educated person must be aware of the mind boggling number of differences in how something like marriage is/has been viewed through different eras, environments, cultures etc. What has always stayed the same however, was the fact that the society in which the marriage takes place defines what marriage even is. (barring the cases of imperialistic powers forcing their will on others etc).

 

[tkthafm]

Why would it be wrong or incorrect to classify homosexuality as a disease or disorder ? It interferes with normal sexual activity for reproduction. This is why I say it's all relative. One guy says "normal deviation" another says "flaw/defect" (if you would prefer that to "disease"). How exactly is one "wrong" ? Which was the point of my post, not to attack science, but to show that science can't adjudicate here; and in comes personal/societal values. I'm aware of the horrors of eugenics and other misuses of "science" - but I don't think a society rejecting gay marriage is comparable to that, or inherently means that society doesn't see gays as equals. If a society establishes a certain definition for marriage, and this does not extend to gays, I don't see the injustice. 
One's personal belief that something like marriage to the same sex is an inalienable human right that should exist everywhere on Earth does not make it so. Of course the counter-argument is that things like slavery were once more widely held to be "OK" .... but this is a poor argument that does not mean gay marriage specifically must therefore to be an inherent human right (akin to life/freedom etc). So again, the mere desire of gays to marry doesn't forcibly deem a society responsible to cater to/accept/support/allow it. In more and more locations society is accommodating/expanding definitions to allow it, due to changes in their own values/beliefs/attitudes. To then take these views and claim a society or individual which holds opposing views is "wrong" because they don't agree and that your view (ex: gay marriage being a human right) is superior is silly when their counter claims (due to THEIR own views/definitions) hold just as much weight as your own. To take it a step further, you can even claim that if somehow the act of marriage between homosexuals was an inherent right given at birth, and the two were to somehow marry in a society that doesn't allow for it (doesn't make sense since marriage is a societal construct) - it doesn't mean that society is then forced to abandon their personal or religious values and be forced to accept/accommodate the marriage. If anything, doing so would arguably be infringing on THEIR rights. 
Let's say a Muslim man felt it was his inalienable human right, given to him at birth, to have the ability to marry 4 wives (mutual consent, obviously). Why is the US, or any society for that matter, not suddenly forced to accept & accommodate this "human right" ? Any educated person must be aware of the mind boggling number of differences in how something like marriage is/has been viewed through different eras, environments, cultures etc. What has always stayed the same however, was the fact that the society in which the marriage takes place defines what marriage even is. (barring the cases of imperialistic powers forcing their will on others etc).

 

[Jordan8]

Nothing.
Nothing is wrong with Pedophilia, Polygamy, Incest, Bestiality, etc either.

Let em all get married. Im tolerant of all sexual preferences. 

What you disagree? Yous intolerant