Is gay marriage correct? I have been thinking about this recently, and it's an interesting topic to say the least. The way I see it, the actual state of being in matrimony can only be achieved by a man and a women, unless you change the definition that has existed for two thousand years. However, I think the best solution is simply to get the government out of marriage, and allow churches to marry who the please. What are your thoughts?
So you feel that the definition of marriage is between one man and many women?
Is marriage correct?
If you wanna get married, then it's between a man and a woman.If you wanna get civilly bound, then do whatever. It's not like gay people have any emotional/physical attachment to their partner, they just want tax breaks.
There is no "gay marriage," bro. The term would be same-sex marriage.Is it correct? is any marriage correct? Should society subsidize private relationships that have a deleterious effect on society (married people do less for neighbors and their community)?Prolly not.
>>20158That is a possible acceptable definition by historical terms. I think it should be up to churches to decide that. If the Mormons want to, why not?
No, all marriage is wrong
>>20204>mormons >not the laughing stock of every religion ever
>>20195Where are you getting these figures from? Marriage has always been the building block of society.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/10/study-children-fare-better-traditional-mom-dad-fam/?page=all
>>20232>says the guy who can't get a gf
>>20234Yeah they're crazy. So what? I think the Japaneese are crazy, I don't tell them how to live.
>>20244b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-b-but muh DICK IN BUTT LOVING
>>20192>>20129 (OP)The better solution is to have universal Civil Unions, and Holy Matrimony for men and women.Everybody gets the same protections and rights from the govt, and religious couples get thier special ceremony.Everybody wins.
Better question: is marriage correct?Should you entrust anyone to have half your shit and more at any given time? How do you know that bitch (male or female) won't just screw your ass over once the ring is on?The question's rhetorical.
>>20275It means they shouldn't be used as a rationalization for allowing polygamy.
>>20244>children fare better with a traditional mother and father>How we're genetically "designed" to be as that is how we procreateREALLY?!?! THIS IS NEW!!!!!
>>20292Yeah, you could do this shit aswell. My main point is there is no need to legislate marriage.
Marriage is a legal agreement between a man and a woman and has been for a very long time. People just don't want to admit that what they actually want is to introduce a new concept on its own merits so they instead incorrectly say it's a matter of equal rights. What they don't realize is they have the same rights to marriage as anyone else, straight people can't marry same sex partners either.This whole mess would be easier if we abolished marriage anyway, marriage is a cultural traffic jam wrapped in poor lawmaking and does very little but harm those involved.
>>20328It's extremely surprising to gay people. They think "as long as you have love it's alright" Except their form of "love" is introducing kids to cock butt at an early age
>>20244Bullshit.It assumes that "marriage" is necessary for society. Not even all cultures have marraige. It is not necessary.Marriage is about property. Nothing else. Marriage allows families to concentrate wealth and power.As far as social harm, look at the stats regarding charity work and marriage. Marrieds focus on their own family. Singles focus around others.There is no argument to support subisidizing such relationships either.
In m-many cultures before Christianity as w-well as in many pagan and even euro-centric cultures, homosexuality w-was not degrading, and m-many greek cultures even s-supported homosexual unions.When you try to make a historical definition, don't arbitrarily make a cut off date.
>>20297What's with all this anti-marriage shit? The only reason marriage seems not as important as before is because we're in a bonobo masturbation society.
>>20360I'm talking about the western world, within Christian thought. I agree with you, that homosexuality is only an issue because it's relegated to the outskirts and given no proper niche.
>>20359Actually, yes there is. As the nuclear family is the best unit for creating children, and as evidenced above, produces the best rounded ones.
>>20428BUT HOW WILL THEY COME TO APPRECIATE DIICK IN BUTTTTTTT
OP, I agree. If the government didn't offer benefits to married couples or treat them any differently than two single people living in the same house, I don't think we'd have this problem. Marriage should be a religious ceremony only.
>>20365Bonobo's are our s-second closest genetic relative; w-we're almost certainly designed t-to function sexually like them. This is w-why Bonobo's are one of t-the only primate t-that has female moaning, same as humans.Moaning is evolutionarily thought to exist in order to encourage group sex.T-THE MORE YOU KNOW!>>20404Christian t-thought is not the only thought n-nor has it been historically predominant. R-remember, it's r-relatively recent c-compared to hinduism or buddhism.>>20428Actually t-there is substantial evidence t-that TWO fathers and ONE mother p-produces significantly more viable children then the "nuclear family".
I absolutely loathe people who insist in gay marriage.If you seek to break all traditions, isn't it bigoted to get rid of the traditions you don't like and adapting them to your personal likings?legal unions that warrant you the same benefits? fuck yeah, let gays have them. why not?but gay MARRIAGE? that's religious stuff. it's absolutelly disgusting to rage about the church 24/7 because the church dislikes gays, only to barge in there claiming the RIGHT to appropriate the tradition associated with something you loathe and criticize 24/7.make up your minds, faggots. either you dislike the church and have nothing to do with it or you accept it as much as you preach that you want to be accepted yourself. It's not that hard. It's called having a conscience and actually making a commitment to the society in return for all the commitments society is making to all gays in the past few years. (if you deny that society has changed and altered itself in a huge commitment as of late towards gays, you're nothing but self-entitled pricks.).in short: legal unions? gays are human beings and should have legal alternatives that equals (to the extent of possibility) those granted to heteros.gay marriage? nope. it's religious shit."give unto ceaser's what belongs to ceaser. Give unto the God what belongs to God." problem is , people have a hard time establishing reasonable boundaries and constantly push towards getting as much leeway as they can.
>>20195marriage has always been a retarded concept.
>>20428There are few other options.And those with not good familes tend to be poor. Marriage and a normal family are most often seen in people of the middle class or higher. Working class and the poor do not have high rates of marriage. They have the higest rates of kids without parental involvement after birth.
>>20465Yeah well there's also significant evidence that 3 mothers 2 dogs and a transgender parrot produce twice as effective children than a household with 1 mother 3 fathers and 28 grandchildren.
>>20365You can live together just as happily with someone without being married. Even if it's so important to have a big party for it, then go ahead and have a party and call each other mates or whatever rocks your socks into a position where the heel is somehow on top instead.Love doesn't have to be about putting the knife in your lover's hand and aiming it towards your back for them and seeing what happens. It's about two people, whatever genders they want to be, being together.Sanctifying it with a religion that brought about the dark ages just seems counter-productive to that, when such a thing can easily bring a dark age to your life in the now.My own mate hates the whole idea of marriage as well, and prefers just considering himself 'mine,' and insists that we don't need anyone else to tell us that we're together, or put a gun to each others' heads and see if we loaded them or not.Food for thought.
>>20523I call bullshit on this as I come from a family of 1/2 mothers 15 gerbils an asexual dog 32 fathers and 6 nude uncles and I'm perfectly fine
>>20523N-no there isn't. Mostly b-because the sample size w-would be quite small, I d-do believe. Where as the t-two fathers one m-mother sample size is q-quite large; a g-good number of tribes practice it, allowing f-for statistically significant data.The mechanism is thought to be increased attention and nutrition during the first five years of life, leading to significantly lower infant mortality.
>>20465First off, Bonobo's and Chimpanzee's are genetically distinct, and that's why we look at them as different species. We didn't until technology advanced enough. The moaning is also a Non-sequiturIn fact, within the western world, Christian thought influences us far more than you would think. The modern ideas of liberalism come from enlightenment philosophers, who all drew many of their ideas from Christianity. Egalitarianism comes from the Christian idea that all are equal before the lord, and egalitarianism is the reason why this gay marriage thing is being pushed for.If you'd care to back up that last statement, I'd be more than happy to consider it within my arguments.
Marriage can only happen between a man and a woman, anything else is just semantic play to confuse future generations of what a family is.Ever wondered why liberals support gay activists?"Abolition [Aufhebung] of the family! On what foundation is the present family, the bourgeois family, based? On capital, on private gain. In its completely developed form, this family exists only among the bourgeoisie. [...]The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital."Communist Manifesto
i think it's not.marriage it's only there to support the idea of family.if two people want to be in love for life they can, you don't fucking need a marriage, it isn't even the point of marriage.it doesn't matter if you are gay or hetero.also i don't get tax reduction on couples. do they even exist for marriage?( if yes they should apply for gay couples too)it only makes sense for couples with children IMHO.
>>20462>no subsidy for raising children>becomes too expensive >birthrate falls below 2/couple>society deteriorates
>>20468I like the way you think.
>>20580"Religion brought about the dark ages, hurr durr"What a ridiculous argument. Religion has long been a proponent of scientific thought. See the Islamic Golden Age, or the Renaissance. The Church, in both instances, was the primary patron.
>>20655That argument's fucking retarded, because heterosexual marital couples aren't obliged to, nor do they always, have children.
>>20244>Citing a notably conservative paper.>Ignoring 100s of other studies, including several by the APAIgnore all troll posts please.
>>20580>Religion brought about the dark agesThis is why we need /hist/
>>20468Who said the word 'marriage' can't be removed from its religious semantics? That's fucking dumb.
>>20656I think it's 2.1.
>>20675What the church dictates and its members contend can be very different. Even today, the vast majority of Catholics are quite socially liberal, even though the Church is as archaic as ever.
>>20709Cite your own studies.
>>20580>Religion brought about the dark agesHave you ever picked up an history book?
>>20705it doesn't matter.they still form a family by definition and they support the idea of a family.still no fucking point in marrying if you don't want to have children.
>>20738This is correct.
>>20675>Religion has long been a proponent of scientific thought.As long as that scientific thought agrees with religion, of course.
>>20618...w-what? I'm n-not sure what the f-first part even vaguely means; I n-never refered to bonobo's and chimpanzee's as identical or even r-related. I s-said they were the SECOND closest, genetically, t-to us. Chimps are FIRST, bonobo's are SECOND.The moaning is a w-way to distinguish between the two; chimps don't moan, bonobo's do (like us), meaning our sexuality takes cues from a common ancestor most likely closer to bonobo's than chimps.Second, the "modern ideals of liberalism" come from...well, a wide variety of sources, that were rediscovered by the enlightenment philosophers, not invented by them. Sorry, but you don't get to declare you invented something because you happened to save the last library that those ideas were written in; the enlightenment philosophers parroted and refined much more ancient philosophies, while the Islamic keepers of those libraries descended into, well, religious zealotry.Finally, egalitarianism came more from deist beliefs than theist ones; please actually read the history of these things.L-let me see if I c-can find the study, it w-was quite interesting.
>>20775Are you telling me government doesn't suppress science when it doesn't agree with their agenda? Look up Nikola Tesla.
>>20675Read up on what Constantine did to Rome, you'll learn something and I won't have to explain anything beyond this: without the Church, the Renaissance would have come much, much sooner. And we'd have some hoverbikes.
>>20651>>20655homosexuality is found in more than 1500 species, which makes it natural, unlike celibacy whick is an abomination practiced by many religious sects
>>20656>cut welfare>only people rich enough to support children can have them>cry a single tear of joy when I realize that the white race will make a comeback
>>20808T-that was more Edison t-than the government.
>>20718Religion DID bring upon the dark ages. Muslims raiding christians, christians raiding muslims, etc.
>>20158That is not a feeling it is literally what the definition is.
>>207331) that's the problem with all the edgy gays: you want to force things to change in order to suit your cause. Why can't you just CREATE things instead of CHANGING WHAT ALREADY EXISTS AND WORKS??2) you don't need to "remove" marriage from the context you don't like it in. There's a LEGAL alternative but with a different meaning. if all you want is "marriage" because it sounds fancy, as opposed to having the same RIGHTS but with a duller name, then are you seriously able to claim, with a straight face (lol) that you want equality? that's nothing but a tantrum.
>>20468Lots of churches support same-sex marriage. Why is the opinion of the churches that don't more important than the churches that do?The rest of your post is an inane comment Stallman wouldn't stand for.
>>20656Learn to demography, faggot.People fuck with or without subsidies for children. The falling TFR is economic in the way that people are less reliant on children. In the days of high TFRs there is less structured social support (no social security) and higher death rates. AS societies become more economical secure, the TFR declines.Is it bad? not at all. Technology has allowed us to do more with less people.
>>20752http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/Marriage%20of%20Same-Sex%20Couples%20Position%20Statement%20-%20October%202006%20(1).pdfhttp://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdfhttp://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2010/10/27/amicus29.pdfPawelski JG, Perrin EC, Foy JM, et al. (July 2006). "The effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership laws on the health and well-being of children". Pediatrics 118 (1): 349–64
>>20797Are you proposing that modern liberalism did not evolve by the church run university system? And that the university system today is a direct continuation of secular theological thought?Furthermore, whilst we do moan, we mimic chimps in most other ways. This is relevant as you suggested that we are sexually genetically similar to bonobo's, which is false."Deist beliefs, not Theist ones"Then by your standard, Egalitarianism existed within Hindu India? Not until Sikhism, it didn't. Nor in Buddhist, nor in Taoist, nor in Shinto, nor Animist.
>>20820Civilization only exists in one.
>>20765>gay couple marries>can't adopt because you voted against legislation for same-sex adoption>LOOK AT HOW LITTLE THEY'RE SUPPORTING CHILDREN AND SOCIETY THEY DON'T DESERVE MY TAX BREAKS
>>20759Read up on book burnings around Christianity's forcible shift to mainstream.
>>20832No, after Tesla left Edison, the government undermined his efforts until he died, then seized his papers and work.
>>20999Secular institutions do this to. See: Nazi's, Commies, etc.
>>20860Why are you such a baby about everything?
>>20765I would love to get married and adopt children.
>>21055True. Religious and similar secular organizations have caused a lot of harm through restriction of information. Religion primarily lead to the collapse of science and information throughout Europe, secular institutions similar to the authoritarian regimes of religion (and basically the same thing) let to 20 million dead Ruskies.
>>20900The first one deals with gender identity and sexuality. Not about that actual outcomes of the children. The second one, in a similar way measures parenting techniques and the quality of care bestowed upon these children. This assumes that if parents love them the same, even if there is biological differences, that they will end up the same."Because marriage rights have been granted to same-sex couples only recently and only in a few jurisdictions, no empirical studies have yet been published that systematically compare married same-sex couples to unmarried same-sex couples." It's not even on topic.
>>21055I'm pretty sure you're comparing Christianity to Nazis by saying that.I don't disagree with you, because of certain left wing extremist cults who follow the Bible more closely, and because of the Bible itself, but I'm just making sure I'm understanding what you're getting at.
>>21218*Ukrainians. But yeah.
>>20862man, all those equality movements in the US really screwed all your brains, huh?
>>21251I'm comparing control systems to control systems. The difference is that secular ideology doesn't usually deal with metaphysics.
I think the marriage is an important issue in gay rights.I have a theory: people are against gay marriage because that they are affraid that if the basic definition of marriage can be bent for gay people, it can be further bent for other straight people they think unfit for marriage.For example, if gay parents are allowed and encouraged to adopt kids, single people will also be encouraged.The way I see it is that gay are still a minority of population, and their real fear is within the straight population and allowing gay marriage can split that straight population.how do you think about this theory?
>>21293This is certainly a factor. And it's not a negative thing, as the nuclear family has been the building block of virtually every society.
Marriage is fucking retarded. the only reason why people want it so much is because their parents told them its what they wanted.
>>20862think about it this way:in a class of 20 students, only 1 fails the test.in order for that student not to feel left behind, the teacher decides to ease off on the teaching so he can achieve higher scores.the rest of the class scores 100%, while he passes.The result is a net loss in that the rest of the class learned less then they should. all not to hurt little Timmy's feelings.
>>20775Shh, you're not supposed to make that distinction.
>>20129 (OP)marriage is a human construct, which is subject to change over time, although i disagree with gay marriage, i see nothing wrong with it>mainly because i don't accept it on a personal levelso it really depends on what you believe vs what society tells you.>do you really think everyone felt that killing jews was fine during WW2? no people just didn't say anything out of fear or apathy.again same thing, but people who speak out against gay marriage really have no logical argument and are only butthurt. I don't know why they care so much,>I'm just glad i can always move to saudi
Marriage is such a silly concept in this day and age when the divorce rate is 50%. I say let em get married, it's no skin off our nuts, right? Hell, tons of kids cycling through foster homes year after year, let them adopt if they want too.Now, trans people having kids? I gotta say, I'm strongly opposed to that. Can't really say why, it just seems like a little too much for a kid.
It's been a few years, and of course this talk of marriage requires a discussion on religion, and the history of.It's been several years since I took my class on history (with an excellent professor named something like Rutigalano at NYU), but before Christianity was forced on Rome, it wasn't uncommon to have male/male couples, incestual activities, slavery that could be bought out of, and children adoption with male/male couples, right?
>>20129 (OP)>What are your thoughts?Marriage itself is an outdated institution in our progressive society. Why would any breadwinner subject themselves to this http://weddedabyss.wordpress.com/
>>20468I am both gay and a member of a church. I don't hate the church as a whole. If a church doesn't want to marry gays of course I personally disagree with their opinion but they have the right to their own interpretation and following of scripture. It's my opinion that the government should back off from marriage and allow each church to decide, since as you said it's religious shit.
>>21237Not that guy, but I'm pretty sure he cited the third study to make a point saying that there hasn't been any definitive proof that gay parents are any different from straight ones.
>>21338No, it hasn't. Where did you get that idea?
>>21338In terms of gay movement, I see them as a strong allyhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/02/gay-staight-couples-deserve-equality-nowthose straight people who want partership openly acknowledge that they got their ideas from gay movement.
>>21530That is where I am at aswell. But lower on the Kinsey scale.
>>20820>rape is found in more than 1500 species, which makes it naturalThis is what you sound like right now
>>21566Fuck that image, I don't have to hate/fear fags to not want them ruining marriage.
>>21623Why do you believe it would ruin marriage?
>>21566Right, but my point is that there is actual evidence that children with both their biological mother and father in marriage do better. As cited above.
>>21623>marriage>not ruinedIt's 2013, bro, pick one.
>>21623I think he's talking about basic "marriage rights" given by legal Civil Unions.If you disagree with that sentiment, then you are the kind of person he's talking about.
>>21674But he discredited your source as having a conservative bias, and then coted a source further discrediting it.I'm not saying you have to agree, bit it is on topic.
>>21600Rape is natural. It doesn't make it right, but the argument from nature is a fallacy and that is proof of such. Don't move the goal posts.
For those who say gay marriage is an "inequal" right, because gays can already get married to someone of the opposite sex:Marriage is an incomplete right. Straight people can't get gay married either
>>21775>cited>butSorry, I'm on my phone
>>21674No there isn't.
>>20343>Marriage is a legal agreement between a man and a woman and has been for a very long time. People just don't want to admit that what they actually want is to introduce a new concept on its own merits I have a question: how would it impact the normal marriage if same sex marriage is allowed?I am sure the impact is definitely much stronger than the same sex marriage lobbyists are willing to admit, but I can't pin point how. The whole legal and cultural issues around marriage is too much for me to read.Personally I am positive that same sex marriage is unstoppable. I think it's part of our society's development.We have allowed divorce. Then single family and remarriage. We have children from single family and remarriage. They are the reason why gay people can marry and adopt, because they are the strongest prove that marriage is not a union between one man and one woman.
>>21775Then read the study in question. That is simply the reporting agencies take on it.
I'm Catholic.The only ground I'll be willing to give up is legally-recognized civil unions with the same benefits as marriage. Respectfully speaking, faggotry needs to stay out of the religious aspect of marriage.
>>21817>Marriage is an incomplete right. Straight people can't get gay married eitherI think if we get our gay marriage, they will soon demand to have it too.plenty of straight people want a quasi marriage
>>21957Well why don't we call male/female marriages legally-recognized civil unions, too, and just drop religion from the whole thing?Marriage wasn't always religious, we can just kick it back a few notches to when it was, y'know, good.
>>21925i have trouble thinking of any impacts honestly
>>20129 (OP)Marriage is just a fucking ritual.It really doesn't matter how it's performed and who performs it.It's just the fact that marriage is marketed, so in order to keep customers it's outlawed.
>>22001What's 'quasi' about it? How is it a violation of their rights? They don't want to get married to the same sex.
>>22083Why don't they want to? Marriage doesn't have to be sexual. You can marry just for legal benefits, you know.Adam Sandler was in a movie about it.
>>22001I'm positive in states where gay marriage is legal two striaght people of the same sex could get married. That's the point. I don't really see any problem with that. I mean, it's the plot to a Kevin James movie for christ's sake.
Fuck it, lets make all "marriages" civil union and allow religious to get "married" in a church if they want to, but simply being "married" wont give you the same rights without a civil union.
>>21957Well then the only compromise is for marriage to no longer have any legal benefits. Instead, you must have a civil union to secure those benefits.
>>22144I'm fine with that
>>21800Uhh. You do know abortion is only found in humans, right?Just to add to the other anon's comment.I'm sorry. But this 1500 bullshit really gets on my nerves.
>tfw in polyamorous relationship>know that it will probably never become legal for us to get married>the possibility of it becoming legal is even used as a reason not to allow gay marriageYou fuckers dont even BEGIN to realize how bad this feels.
>>22062Because you can't force churches to recognize what they perceive as degenerate behavior.
Marriage should be abolished in any case. Or at tax advantages for married people should be stopped.
>>22225True, you can't. But there are churches that would be happy to perform gay marriages too. Why don't we just leave it up to each church?
>>22144This is honestly the best solution, but because it's the best one it'll obviously never happen.
>>22072I think it's because all the divorce, remarriage and single parents have already paved the way for us.
>>22225But churches can force degenerate behavior on society thanks to the forced linking of church and state through the ideals of democracy, even when the majority is a bunch of idiots taught garbage at public school.And so the system produces crap and eats the exact same crap.Fuck it, I'm moving to Canada.captcha: this illnes
>>22344pretty much
>>22344As of 2012, approximately two million children in the United States were being raised by LGBT parents and unable to establish a legal relationship with both their parentsBernard, Tara Siegel (20 July 2012). "A Family With Two Moms, Except in the Eyes of the Law".
>>22356And it all boils down to that, doesn't it?If Christianity were denied the ability to teach Creationism in school, we'd have a smarter population, more atheists, and more people okay with gay marriage.
>>22470What, do they just count as orphans with a home, then?
>>20129 (OP)tl;dr: OP is an idiotIm pretty sure their are 2 definitions of marriage which are getting everyone....well religious fanatics mostly confused.Christains get married. Before they do they sign a contract with the state. Christians want to keep the part after the signing as a man and a woman. When homosexuals tried to explain they wanted the rights and when they realized how wrong they were and what a huge loop hole they created by not realizing the contract portion is actually a legit argument....they created false science to prove why homosexuals should not be able to sign that contract. The marriage argument has evolved. It's n longer a man and a woman. Massachusetts and the rest of the world have already proven that marriage between homosexuals is no different that marriage between heterosexuals. There was only one big issue...certain faiths didnt want to marry homosexuals and be called out for saying no. That argument was fixed by reminding faiths that they are collecting money to stay alive from the state and they really have no choice. But even that was fixed when people were paying that one religious leader who was made fun of in religious school for supporting such a stupid idea millions of Dollars without the stat's help. I mean the argument to not support this atm is no different than if someone did not want to serve black persons. It's just an old way of thinking. Op, unless you think black shouldn't marry Caucasians then stfu and get with the obvious program.
>>22301It's catholic church. They are all under the command of Rome.
>>22565I'm guessing only one parent counts as their legal parent instead of both
>>20656India and China's birthrates are suffering horribly from not having America's level of birth incentives. If only they had as many people as America.
>>22184but he didn't said anything about abortion
>>20244You're blatantly stupid and I wonder how you're alive. This thread is about not putting the Government in marriage, it;s not about making the term marriage illegal. What does the governments involvement have to do with mommy and daddy homes.
