http://archives.religionnews.com/culture/culture-archives/opponents-of-gay-marriage-say-theyre-no-bigotsI expected this article to actually be about people who are only concerned about the preservation of traditional marriage, and are not, as the title suggests, bigots....every person in this article pretty much dislikes the idea of homosexuality, not just homosexual marriage. *sigh* Misleading title is misleading...Is there ANYONE out there who doesn't support gay marriage, and also doesn't hate gays? Or is that just a mythical creature? As a proponent of interfaith dialogue, I would love to hear the opinions of people who are only interested in keeping marriage as an institution heterosexual, not making everyone on the planet heterosexual.
> As a proponent of interfaith dialoguetheres no such thing as interfaith dialogue, merely ceasefire between religious violencereligious moderation is a myth
>Is there ANYONE out there who doesn't support gay marriage, and also doesn't hate gays?My only close friend is bi, strongly leaning towards gay, and he always argues against gay marriage because he says marriage as we know it is a traditionally religious institution and homosexuality is evolutionarily useless anywayI don't really agree with him (actually I almost entirely disagree) but he doesn't hate gays and he doesn't support gay marriage. So the answer is yes
>Is there ANYONE out there who doesn't support gay marriage, and also doesn't hate gays? Or is that just a mythical creature?They exist, like gay republicans or gay christians. The hypocrisy never seems to register.
I think the best arguments against gay marriage are:1) Marriage is for bringing up children and homosexuals cant have kids and if they adopt them it will mess with their minds. The second thing is debatable and people just assume it to be true.2) Marriage is a union of people under god and most gays aren't religious so marriage would be pointless.3) Scripture doesn't allow gay marriage. The Bible does say that gay people should be killed in Leviticus 20:13 but the church seems to be quite cherry picking about what stuff in the old testament they accept and don't accept which is the main reason why I think religion is all a load of bollocks.Note: I don't necessarily agree with any of these arguments. I personally only think gay marriage should be allowed because of freedom of religion not because of equality.
Mostly they fall into a few categories. 1. Gays who don't want to be forced into social beliefs like marriage. My boss is like this, she doesn't want gay marriage because she doesn't want her gf getting half her crap etc. It's the same mentality as heterosexuals who are just against marriage only people don't ask them why and they want to keep it that way.People who believe that marriage itself should not be a federal/political issue to begin with. That the government should have nothing to do with all marriage including gay and homosexual.Also religious people who are okay with gays but don't disavow their religious views that it shouldn't be involved in the church.
Obviously, no one who thinks they are right is going to identify as a bigot.
>>195253>gay and heterosexualStupid freudian slip.
OP, just for the record: Denying a couple the right to their secular marriage based on faith is bullshit. No one orders the church to recognize the marriage.
I'm bisexual and I don't support gay marriage if it's a religious wedding. It's completely up to the church and their religion whether they want to marry gays or not. State weddings (or whatever they're called) on the other hand should be allowed to everyone.
>>195109/pol/ pls go
>>195092 (OP)>Is there ANYONE out there who doesn't support gay marriage, and also doesn't hate gays?Reporting in. I actually like the dick myself but feel marriage should be exclusively between a man and woman, and that it should be for life, none of that no-fault-divorce shit.
>>195329There is literally no reason for marriage to be exclusively for straight couples, other than the fact that that's how its been for a few decades.
>>195329>that it should be for life, none of that no-fault-divorce shit.>divorce rate at 51% in amerigo. Yeah its nice to have ideals and I agree with you, but any defense of the "sanctity" of such a failed institution has lost all meaning. I agree with your mentality, but putting faith in an institution that doesn't even work half the time seems like an exercise in insanity. So if straights fucked it up that badly how could gays make it any worse?
>>195185So one argument lacking any proof based around the notion that couples MUST have kids and two arguments stating marriage is purely religious.That amounts to nothing. Atheists are allowed to marry. Sterile people are allowed to marry. Marriage was hijacked by religion. It was not originally a religious thing.
>traditionally religious institutionExcept it's a prehistoric institution and your friend don't know shit.And the only people who are against gay marriage are:Bigots.Self-hating gays.And bigots who pretend not to be bigots, as they think it gives more validity to their arguments. When they are in fact just bigots.
>>195358>There is literally no reason for marriage to be exclusively for straight couples, other than the fact that that's how its been for a few decades.Religion. A church should not be forced to go against their beliefs for something like marriage.Should gay people have the option for unions that grant ALL of the same benefits as marriage? Yes.Should they be allowed to force a church to marry them? No.I don't see what's so fucking hard about this.
>>195419Marriage has nothing to do with religion. Most gays aren't religious and wouldn't want to be married in a church anyway. Nobody is trying to force churches to recognize gay marriage; that's not the issue.I don't see what's so fucking hard about this.
Your definition of "bigot" is "anyone who disagrees with you." bigot n.a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, esp on religion, politics, or race That's an accurate description of OP.
>>195471What did I say that was intolerant of other people's ideas?
>>195142>traditionally religious institutionNo, we just made it that way for some stupid fucking reason.
>>195185>if they adopt them it will mess with their minds.[citation needed]
>>195383Marriage is a religious thing. A wedding is a religious ceremony.You can't say marriage was hijacked by religion because there is no evidence it existed before religion did.>>195412>Marriage is a prehistoric institutionHow can you know this? Prehistory by definition is before the invention of writing.
>>195501Urm. Can you read I basically wrote Citation needed after I wrote it. I don't know whether it is true or not but it is used as an argument against gay adoption.
>>1955230/10
>>195314>/pol/>speaking out against religion.Obviously you've never been to /pol/. For the record - he's right. The only time religions get along is when there's some third party they despise even more, be they atheists, gays, or marxists.
>>195523>>195544 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#section_3>inb4 WikipediaI'm not doing real research Cas I don't care enough buuuut. >While the institution of marriage pre-dates recorded history, many cultures have legends concerning the origins of marriage.
Marriage has for millennia been a religious sacrament.This is why I believe that government recognition and licencing of marriage - Gay or straight - is a violation of the separation of church and state, just as much as if governments started issuing reincarnation licences or baptism certificates.All recognition of unions for the purposes of granting state and legal benefits should be done on a strictly secular marriage and the only barrier towards such an institution would be an inability to consensually sign a contract.
>>195185>1) Marriage is for bringing up childrenAccording to...? I didn't know we were in the presence of the ur-human, who gets to decide what interpretation of an idea is objectively correct.>2) Marriage is a union of people under god Marriage as an institution pre-dates the Abrahamic god and will be around long after said god is an embarrassing footnote about the savagery of antiquated man.>3) Scripture doesn't allow gay marriage.Might be a problem for Abrahamics, but guess what - marriage isn't a Abrahamic institution, and not everyone is a Abrahamic.
>>195489You dishonestly misrepresented the content of the article, labelled people bigots for the sole purpose of discrediting them via name-calling, and defended things like this:>The Family Research Council, headed by Tony Perkins, has been labeled a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for "defaming gays and lesbians."Anyone you disagree with is accused of "hate" but you fail to point out any instances of hate.
Nothing against marriages, I just honestly believe gay couples shouldn't be able to adopt kids. I'm not saying they can't raise a child properly, but the poor kid's school life will be ruined forever if anyone learns about his parents.
>>195642Maybe I shouldn't have phrased my question as "is there anyone who disagrees with homosexual marriage and doesn't hate gays." What about "disagrees with homosexual marriage and doesn't disagree with homosexual behavior".However, while I don't necessarily think everyone in the article is hateful, they all express negative views about homosexuality.
I don't give a fuck about the term marriage, as long as civil unions are universally recognized (outside of religious institutions) and offer the same rights as married couples, then that is just fine. Don't force the church to accept the marriage of couples their silly dusty tomes forbid, just give baby its bottle and move on.I'll keep my state out of your church if you keep your church out of my state.
>>195650Kids are gonna be cruel no matter what. I've met several people raised by gay couples and they didn't have much trouble in school, and ended up being very well adjusted people. Why would the kids even know about it anyway unless you're going around telling your friends about your parents sex life.
>>195650So just lay down and let bigotry and generations-old hate win? Fuck that. Kids get bullied for all kinds of shit. What, don't let gingers have kids because the kid will get made fun of?What a retarded opinion.
Uh...did the guy in OP's pic marry the Rule 63 version of himself?
>>195728I'd totally go straight for a girl version of me.
>>195728Is she hiding her bulge?
>>195650This is a pointless notion, any "human rights" activism has had the same arguments I.e. blacks and whites shouldn't get married because their kids will have a social stigma problem growing up. Yeah it happens but its no reason to avoid progression. >>195621> is a violation of the separation of church and state, just as much as if governments started issuing reincarnation licences or baptism certificates But the marriage under government isnt a religious one but a federal one under the idea of taxation and benefits. Civil unions don't get the same recognition. The issue of it being the word 'marriage" is one of social importance. >>195489People are entitled to their opinions just as much as you. If someone says "I have no reason, I just don't want gay marriage legal" that doesn't make them bigots. The people there are mostly "well if it ain't broke for me don't fix it" none of it is "Fuck them gays all gaying up my marriage with their gayness."
>>195650Let us know when you get out of the 1950's.
>>195752You got it! Check out these hairclips.
Well, I think that marriage should be abolished as a whole.I don't see why they state has to been involved in this at all.
>>195804Agreed, it's an outdated institution. Not going to happen until all the elderly traditionalists in the american government start dying off, though.
>>195788Hay, you're on here too! and still making my heart bleed with cute pics...
>>195832>Blaming the traditionalistsThe liberals love the idea of feel-good state-mandated equality. Even if all the republicans keeled over and died, they'll still act like if you repealed government marriage it would mean mass homophobia.
>>195092 (OP)I don't support gay marriage.I don't support marriage, period.Then again I'm a borderline priest eater so I'm probably not going for interfaith anything.
>>195882>implying marriage started out as a religion thing
>>195755>But the marriage under government isnt a religious one but a federal one under the idea of taxation and benefits. Civil unions don't get the same recognition. The issue of it being the word 'marriage" is one of social importance.That's my point. Civil unions should be the only vehicle by which people can get goverent recognition of their union. They can go to a church and get a marriage if they want additional spiritual validation.
>>195419Why do we have to call something like this a "civil union"? You can get married outside of a church. I can get a license to marry people as a representative of the Pastrafarian church too, if I wanted to and had 40 bucks.Why not let them get it, and have churches decided if they wanted to do the ceremony or not? Why create a separate institution with a new name?
>>195915Because muh marriage, muh religious overtones still associated with getting married, muh sacred duty to procreate, etc. etc.
>>195642Any american organisation with "family" in the name is almost by definition a group of intolerant christian fundamentalists.Capcha: Lord
I personally could care less about if somebody is gay or not, but I don't agree with gay marriage. Nothing is really being denied them other than a tax break.
>>196038Tax break, visitation rights when the partner is in the hospital, the ability to share health insurance...
>>196048Things which are necessary for families, not relationships.
>>195642The FRC is basically a group of Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians who also support shit like teaching creationism (sorry Intelligent Design) in school, and removing sex ed (except in a don't do it sense) in schools, and claim helping children born out of wedlock shouldn't be supported ignoring basic tenents of Christianity that say pretty much the opposite.
>>196038Bottom line is they're not allowed to entered into a legally binding contract solely because they're homosexit would be like them not being allowed to take out a loan because they're gay
>>196038Please educate yourself, you're making the rest of us look bad.
>>196072>implying gay couples can't have families>implying that these aren't also useful for long term couples who are committed to each other, own a house together, etcNot like we put strict requirements on normal marriage, though. Why should we now?
>>196072>visiting a partner in the hospital>not important for a relationshipnigguh wut?
>>196072So unless you have kids then fuck you?Okay, all childless couples, gay or straight, should not be granted those things until they have a child. Sound fair?
>>196096Quite frankly I just don't see a gay relationship as a family unit. If you choose, or are genetically wired, or whatever the persuasion that causes you to be homosexual then you basically give up your ability to create children. I think that makes it pretty obvious, even despite of ways to adopt, artificially inseminate or whatever else that it isn't a family.
>>196072Homosexuals can have kids, too. What's your point?
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/usa08.html#usa1108c
>>196072So infertile people and old people shouldn't be allowed to get married then either, since they're not building a family?
>>196114>Sterile couples also aren't real>Adoptive parents? Fuck em, not a real familyWelp.
>>196114Did you seriously just say that it's not a "real" family with adopted kids?That's just...sick and wrong. Jimmies rustled. You're a shitty person. Fuck.
>>196114So what about childless, no child, and infertile couples, guess they should go that way as well.Still waiting for the destroying the sanctitiy of marriage folks.
>>196123If those couple are still heterosexual then they are still in a position to procreate. Being homosexual completely removes you from ever being able to procreate. Heterosexual relationships are what creates children, homosexual ones cannot. Regardless of the details you want to nitpick about it, I think my point is pretty obvious.
>>1951422edgy4u
>>196114>Adoption isn't legitimateAll I can do is hope YOU never have kids.
>>196157Wow, you're really fucking stupid.
>>196157>sterile>still in a position to reproduceI don't agree, your point is kind of crazily fascist-y, and it doesn't make fucking sense.Why would it matter if they're able to have kids? That's not the purpose of marriage in our society, man.
>>196140>sanctitiy of marriageOh lordy that never fails to make me laugh
What about the laws like in North Carolina that not only prohibit gays from getting married, but denies rights to unmarried hetero couples with kids? Do you people seriously not understand how this kind of thing hurts everybody?
>>196157>I think my point is pretty obvious.It is: You're a moron.
>>196168Has nothing to do with the sanctity of marriage. If being gay is a genetic disposition or anything like that then doesn't that mean you genetically have been removed from the gene pool?
So much trolling in this thread. All you gals need to cool your nips and, fuck, post about how you have the feels because no qt indie bf
>>196114>quite frankly I think the only families in the world are those on 50s american television
>>196185No.
>>196173I know right.Still get a chuckle that people who got divorced to get a trophy wife have any room to talk about the sanctity of marriage.
>>196157>Being homosexual completely removes you from ever being able to procreateDo you actually think that females have a force field around their pussies that wards off sperm from gay guys?
>>196185And?So are sterile people, so they can't have families?Fuck you man.
>>196157You...you seriously don't understand the concept of sterility? And you seriously believe the base purpose of relationships is to procreate?I hope you're a troll, because that's fucking creepy.
>>195915Because that's the legal definition of a marriage that was performed by the state.
>>196157>Teenager's Edge, a new game by DICE
>>196114>even despite of ways to adopt, artificially inseminate or whatever else that it isn't a family.So a man and woman are both infertile and in a relationship. In your opinion, should they no longer qualify for marriage to each other?A man is in a relationship with a woman. Neither want kids. They agree that the man should have a vasectomy, and he does. In your opinion, should these two people no longer be allowed to marry? Should this man no longer be allowed to marry any other woman?
>>196196>I hope you're a troll, because that's fucking creepy.Maybe he/she's a victim of american sex ed.
>>195443This actually isn't true. I know of quite a few gay people who thought they were reserving the right to force churches to share their customs.
Marriage is ownership. I am as opposed to gay marriage as I am any other kind.
>>196185In the same way people who have decided to not have kids (and have taken steps to ensure they don't), or completely infertile people, or victims of reproductive trauma that requires removal of the basic parts of reproduction.I mean it's not like they can have kids, therefore they shouldn't marry.
>>196190Why doesn't it mean that if two men or two women can't make a child? I totally accept that you want to have a same-sex relationship but if it's not a man and a woman, there is no potential to procreate in the least.
>>196223Stop trolling for a moment and read up on artificial insemination, sperm donors and surrogate mothers.
>>196217Those decisions are called, "family planning" decisions for a reason. Gays don't have to worry about that.
>>196223>homosexuality makes you infertileno
>>196223Nigger do you even heard of surrogates and in vitro fertilization?
>>195092 (OP)Frankly I am a proponent of the idea to remove any and all legal benefits from "marriage", then shovel those over to a "civil union" that doesn't discriminate. Marriage then becomes purely a religious thing and every faith can handle that shit like they wantThe religious right would still blow up in rage but it seems to me that would be the best compromise.btw I have only read OP at that point so could be I am parroting a lot of the people in the thread already.
>>196247Yes, but if you go and have sex with a lesbian or something for the sole purpose of procreation the child is not a result of you and your partner.
>>196223>I'm getting bombarded with facts like sterility.>Holy shit better just ignore it and point out gays can't have children without anything >>196236 said.>>196241Only one of those is, all the rest, by your definition are unworthy of marriage, even if they're straight because they don't fit your very Leibensraum view of marriage.
>>196201>Because that's the legal definition of a marriage that was performed by the state.Nope, that's still marriage. You apply for a marriage license, not a civil union license, and it doesn't matter who performs the ceremony because the only thing that makes you married in any sense that actually matters is a legal marriage license. You can go into a church and gather your friends and have a marriage ceremony performed by an ordained minister, but at the end of the day if you don't apply for a marriage license you are not legally married and the state will not recognize whatever ceremony you decided to have as legally binding.
>>196217>implying marriage was ever primarily a question of reproduction
>>196241He specifically included "reproductive trauma" in that list. If someone shoots my dick off, that's not family planning, but I've now been removed from the gene pool and made unable to have kids. In fact, gay people have far more of an ability to make children than a man who had his dick and balls shot off.
>>196258So then why do so many gay people want to marry in a church if it's not at all necessary?
>>196256All I did was respond to OPs question and gave my basis for it. I'll explain again in the simplest terms possible.Man and woman make sexthey can have babyMan and man make sexcannot have babywoman and woman make sexcannot have babyThat is the basis of this, not "OH INFERTILE MEN TUBES TIED OH PUT SEMEN IN THE GIRLS VAGINA AND THEN IT'S UR BABY"You get really tied up in conditional things rather than the actual statement.
>>196288>If someone shoots my dick off, that's not family planning,I've been doing it wrong then. Dang!
>>196296Cause they like the idea of a big ceremony?Same reason so many straight people want to marry in a church even though it's not necessary?>>196297Why do you feel this is in any way relevant to marriage?
>>196296Because of cultural hegemonic views that the only way to show commitment is a church marriage, this despite the fact that this is a complete, utter lie. Gays aren't immune to this shit when there's a whole fucking bullshit industry and a political ideology with its own think tanks that are built around it in the US.Who the fuck cares so long as that church agrees.
i would describe myself as gay and i find gay marriage retarded.no, i am not in the patriarchy mind opppressed by the CIS privileged, i actually use my brain to think.
>>196314It's relevant because I believe the purpose of marriage is creating a union and family, and one of the primary motivating factors in doing that is to procreate and provide a stable family for it.I'm terribly sorry if my ideas don't perfectly match yours but that's what opinions are and this thread basically asked somebody like me to come and explain my viewpoint.
>>196334>proves use of brain by making a dumb non sequitur
>>196334>i actually use my brain to thinkWhen will you start?
>>196334i would like to add to my post[spoiler] i wouldn't find wrong marraige between man and mtf post operation transgender [/spoiler]
>>196338Okay.I just want you to know that your Opinions don't match why most people get married already.>>196334Elaborate on your position a bit more?
>>196296>So then why do so many gay people want to marry in a church if it's not at all necessary?That's their personal shit with their religion, man. I'm not religious, and I don't care about churches recognizing gay marriages. The only thing that matters is the government recognizing it. As far as I'm concerned, churches, as private institutions, absolutely have every right to deny ANY couple from having a marriage ceremony on their private grounds, and that would be okay because whether you have a church ceremony or not doesn't legally matter.Having marriage ceremonies is not what marriage equality is about, though. What it's about is simply not questioning anyone's gender when they fill out the forms for a marriage license. That's all. Just stop discriminating and let any two people sign a marriage license together and get 100% of the benefits that entails.
>>196350Legally, the second person is a woman. So being against that would be completely retarded.
>>196355They why do they, Dr. Ruth?
>>196347what does this even mean? i already think otherwise i wouldn't be.
>>196338And you were shot down accordingly. Your "ideas" are based in shit that is objectively false.
>>196268Mocking the faggot declaring that it is.>>196288That was one of the few ideas there (others being uterine cancers, ovarian cancers, bi-testicular cancer.>>196296Not many actually do once they figured out that marriage is literally just the license.>>196297ExceptMan and woman who had to have a hysterectomy make sexNo baby will ever happen.Man who lost both testicles due to cancer and woman make sexcannot have baby ever.So once again it's>Oh shit facts that contradict what I'm saying>Conditionals that are rather common in the modern world.
>>196338>that is to procreateRead up on sterility, artificial insemination, sperm donors and surrogate mothers.
>>196364A wide variety of reasons, but mostly to cement a relationship with someone.
This person makes some good points about the whole gay marriage thing.http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/bos/25276218.html>>195874Spreading pro-trap propaganda through cute trap pics is always relevant, wouldn't ya say?
Yes. I try to see both sides so im going to play devils advocate here.Gays deserve the same rights, and religious people cannot be expected to change their traditions or beliefs. And neither group is going to budge. Also im not religious, but i have noticed the gay community seems to harbor a lot of hate toward those who are and automatically assume they're bigots. Resistance to gay marriage could be a bit of a defense mechanism if they associate all gay people with attacking their beliefs. Just a thought.I think this is something that should be left to the states. America is too large and too diverse to keep everybody happy on touchy issues. By giving the most liberal of states some freedom with their laws and allowing conservatives to keep things the way they like it, i think alot of the tension could be removed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-59196/How-women-make-babies-men.htmlpwnt.
>>196373>Man and woman who had to have a hysterectomy make sexNo baby will ever happen.But baby could have happened. Gay never happen even without this condition.>Man who lost both testicles due to cancer and woman make sexcannot have baby ever.But baby could have happened. Gay never happen even without this condition.
>>196394Why not just let marriage licenses go out, but don't make a ruling on Churches at all?
>>196402Huh, so if we had a gay guy and a gay FtM, that'd be okay, because the FtM could have had a child at one point?
>>196402If not both were gay baby could have happened.
>>196402Except you know with the whole surrogate thing, or arificial insemination, or adoption.Seriously how fucking old are you, it sounds like you're either 13 or droppe out of school at 13.
>>196431If it doesn't happen during the ritually blessed marriage procreation, it isn't real.
>>196417If FtM gives up ability to give birth then no.
>>196440Oh right, forgot h was being an aspie.
>>195092 (OP)>any one who disagrees with me is a bigotSnow flake general
>>196331>Because of cultural hegemonic views that the only way to show commitment is a church marriage, this despite the fact that this is a complete, utter lie.I always really hated this part of our culture. The idea that unless you have some big, extravagant ceremony and sign a legal contract you can't possibly be trusted to remain faithful to someone ever, or to have any amount of commitment in any way.In many families, unmarried partners are even treated far differently than married partners, which I just don't understand at all. If you've been with someone long enough and your relationship is serious, marriage status shouldn't fucking matter to whether you're treated as family, but to many people it does.
>>196441How is that different than a guy who had a Vasectomy? He chose to give up the ability to make baby.
>>196440That's not the point at all, you're putting words in my mouth. You are all making this significantly more complicated than it should be.I think marriage should be between a man and a woman because they have the ability to procreate and pass down BOTH their genes in to a child. I don't think gays should be married because they cannot do this.
>>196461It's different because he gave up ability to make baby knowing that was the purpose of doing so. There's nothing wrong with a couple deciding to not have children. The fact of the matter is that it is a CHOICE rather than a FACT of their relationship.
>>196466SO basically I'm a huge fucking moron, right.And once again, sterility isn't just something from later in life, some types are inborn.XX Males fore example, hel most of the extra sex chomosomes types.
>>196466We got that, but you seem to be saying that being able to make a child should be a requirement for marriage, which we've pointed out is ridiculous, or that the only reason to have a marriage is to have kids, which is also ridiculous.Would you similarly be against a MtF transsexual marrying a man?
>>196411 Because those with religious beliefs associate the word marriage with their sacrament, so to me it would seem that they would still not be ok with it. Idk like they are being undermined or something
>>196466Read this>>196397
>>196496I feel this is an issue on their part, since it isn't, and their fine with other religions or even the state performing marriage ceremonies.
>>195092 (OP)I oppose gay marriage on the same basis that I oppose heterosexual marriage.Marriage as in the legal institution that deals with property, ought to be abolished.Free love.Until that time if poofs and dykes want to be stupid cunts like the breeders, then legalise it for all or none.
>>196466Humanity never needed marriage for procreation. Marriage is for shit like property exchange. That's what you're not getting. The religious aspect became increasingly moot as the role of religion as arbiter of laws became obsolete.
>>196394Nobody is telling religious people to change their traditions or beliefs. IMO, forcing churches to hold ceremonies they don't want to is a gross violation of their rights.What we DO WANT is for the GOVERNMENT to recognize marriages regardless of sex. If any two people consent to sign a marriage license together, they should be allowed to without even being asked their gender. That's all anyone wants.Who gives a flying fuck if churches won't let gay marriage ceremonies occur in their buildings? That has no effect on the legal document known as a marriage license, and the marriage license IS ALL THAT LEGALLY MATTERS.
>>196417Why would a woman attracted to men get a sex change to be gay?
>>196527>See this edge splits hair right in the middle
>>196527Go into any of the various Trans threads and it'll be explained. Basically, Gender identity is unrelated to sexuality, don't worry too much about it.Shorter answer is he hates his tits.
Probably not related but...>Watch old media discuss this issue. two guys on each side.> One man points out that indeed, one can draw parallels between Civil Unions and Jim Crowe Laws , because they do not offer the same benefits .> the other guy pretty much used the ideas that, HOW dare a minority tell the majority what to do ( Tyranny of the Majority.) or , This isn't the SAME AS Jim Crowe. ( which is not the truth because, again, history proves that's wrong.) and finally Activist Judges argument ( an argument that is as old as the Fucking moon at this point.)I think gay marriage is a bad idea, simply because marriage has the taint of bad press made by 'normal' people ( conservative senators who have extramarital affairs that destroy marriages, or almost every famous person that only last about 45 minutes.) Hell, if anything, I want DOMA to be overturned and that the federal government either extends all rights to both civil unions or religious marriages.
>>196497>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-59196/How-women-make-babies-men.htmlThis is with the assistance of science and not natural. Again, this is more semantics.>>196491Okay but they didn't choose a same sex partner which is knowingly(or genetically) participating in sexual relationships that cannot produce children ever.>>196493That's more people twisting my words. I said that a man and a woman are capable of having a child. A same sex relationship is not. Semantics, semantics rather than just the simple truth which is why I have this stance.I don't particularly like getting involved in all this gender changing stuff. All I understand is that the people who decide to do so have good enough reasons for them and that's fine. I don't think though that they should be allowed to marry as the MtF has no ovaries.
>>196559>natural>on the internet with the assistance of science2/10 troll
>>196559>I don't think though that they should be allowed to marry as the MtF has no ovariesSo again, how is this different from sterile women?Also no twisting words there, that's a stupid idea and it's already legal for them to marry people of the opposite sex.
>>196503Good point. Im pretty much neutral on the issue to be honest so i dont really know how to argue in depth one way or another. Just trying to bring up a different viewpoint since OP wanted to know how other people think
>>196559>Nature fallacyBINGO!
>>196559>not natural>This social contruct and legal contract should only include things that are all-natural
>>196559You're talking about marriage, a purely cultural institution. Natural is the least of your concerns.
>>196575Because they aren't a woman. They are a MtF
>>196496That's their own personal problem. They've deluded themselves into thinking that their religious beliefs and ceremonies hold legal weight, which they don't.It's not the government's job to cater to religious groups and their feelings. Separation of church and state is fundamental to the US government, no matter how much religions try to constantly undermine that for special treatment.
>>196593Legally, they're women if they're post op.Depending on state, but generally true.
>>196593What the fuck do you think the F is for. Male to Fandango?
>>196597In some states they're legally female even if they're pre-op. A couple states have more lenient requirements than they used
>>196559Your problem is that you think marriage has some kind of unspoken rule requiring procreation.It very much does not.
>>196610Just because it thinks it's a woman doesn't mean it is.
>>196619>itYou are officially trying too hard.
>>196573...Man have penis. Penis go in woman vagina. Penis ejaculate when happy. Semen swim to egg. Egg and sperm make baby. It isn't semen in to cup, pour in to vagina and then raise child with only half of it's chromosomes as a parent.>>196585I can understand that you are all supportive of gender transitioning and everything else on this board. I accept that people do that because they can and for many of them it's a life-or-death situation to my understanding of it. Is there something wrong with thinking that conception in the very least should continue being the way it's done across almost all species of life on Earth or that isn't good enough for you because it doesn't meet your agenda?>>196591It's actually a religious institution as many have pointed out. Is there something terribly wrong with respecting their wishes over their own ceremony?
>>196619Wow, haven't seen physics troll in a few days.
>>196610>male to fandangoTHUNDERBOLTS AND LIGHTNING
>>196619>So edgy we just fell off the planet
>>196355>Elaborate on your position a bit more?for me( and objectively for many cultures) marriage is a construct built to support the idea of family, which is naturally, biologically, storically, culturally man + woman = children.marraige is defined as union of man and woman, both culturally and religiously.i just don't try to apply a definition to something that don't make much sense to apply on.the ability of a couple to really generate children doesn't disrupt, in my opinion, the consolidation of the idea of a family, which is, as i stated, the main purpose of marriage.expanding the definition would make it lose power, effectively destroying the "naturally, biologically" part of family and marraige.it would also break the "historically, culturally" bit, but that's a minor damage because you can argue that you are just starting over a new tradition. these years would however be quite bad for the change because marriage is already in a crysis.i have no problem stating that a gay couple *might*( i have no study to support it) be as efficient as a straight couple in raising children.however a straight couple is fine dealing with it, and family has worked ok for centuries. our society is based on it and IMHO i think you shouldn't fix what isn't broken.i don't see marriage as a right people have. it's more like a right society has in my conception, because you are supposed to create new citizens with it.so i don't care about the feel of homos that feel discriminated by the lack of gay marriage, but more about the possible change of stability in society.that's my vision. if you don't agree that's ok, just don't call me retarded because i dared to think differently from your agenda. if you really have to at least do that debating my points.
>>196630Nah, they're policing the boundaries of masculinity by declaring someone to not be a true man.
>>196595You're absolutely correct. As an aside : In God We Trust was only adopted as the official motto in 1956, during a particularly conservative period in America.It had replaced the *unoffical* motto E Pluribus Unum, or Out of Many, One.
>>196632No one is asking to change the religious definition. The legal procedure called marriage isn't related to any religious institution though.
>>196632ITS ADAM AND KRISNA, NOT SOME STUPID RIB DILDO. IT IS IN THE MAHABHARATA STUPID.
>>196647>>196637>>196630Well calling it "he" would be rude because it thinks it's female, but obviously it's not a female so calling it "she" would be out of the question. "It" is as close as I get to being politically correct with trannies.
>>196559> not natural,> Science.I think you forgetting the fact that science is an understanding of the natural world, or you honestly believe that heterosexuality or "traditional gender roles" are natural, or you truly are a faggot. In which case, I have a delicious bag of Dicks for you to eat.1/10, made me post, ( come on man , you can do better than that.)
>>196648>and objectively for many cultureslolnoMarriage is a construct to support the exchange of property between two families. You don't need marriage to have kids or raise them.
>>196648Same as the other guy, your belief in marriage as a vehicle for creating families seems odd, and excludes the people who get married for other reasons and either don't want to or can't have children.>>196667Trying. Too. Hard.Just go with he.
>>196632>Holy shit he actually called me out on a logical fallacy that's the basis for my whole argument.And civil marriage as a religious institution hasn't existed for nearly a century, there's areason atheist couples can get married by a secular representative of the state, and a marriage in a church isn't legally binding in any way in the first world.
>>196632>It's actually a religious institution as many have pointed out.I'm not going to be impressed by people being wrong because they're many. I'm not running for office here.
>>196667>The Edge of Innocence, a movie by Martin Scorcedgese based on an Edgeith Wharton novel
>>196676yeah i omitted that and it also work with that feature.however > exchange of property between two families> familiesfamilies are still built on marriage.also "exchange of property between two families" has been quite limited in the last century. mostly because we shaped civil rights in a different way from the middle age model where not trading your wife with 1 cow resulted in a destabilization of the economical model of the family.
>>196748>also "exchange of property between two families" has been quite limited in the last centuryLook up female wage rate as a proportion of male wage rate.It is bloody fucking obvious that marriage is still, and always has been, about property.
>>196679I still fail to understand how me saying that scientifically assisted conception isn't natural. Oh it is because science and stuff! isn't really a logical argument either. If you enter in to a same-sex relationship then the ability to procreate a child of both PARENTS genes becomes nil. People do get married for various reasons, and not all of them are the best reasons, sure. Humans aren't perfect animals. My personal belief in marriage is that it is used to foster the ability of a family to procreate and succeed. When you consciously are in a relationship that cannot create children then you are not a family and you should not be married.
ITT: We talk in circles with an idiotAt least it passes the time.
>>196748So what you're saying is that your definition of marriage is less than a century old? Congrats on breaking your own appeal to tradition.
>>196772yeah I can't tell if he's trolling or genuinely autistic
>>196678>excludes the people who get married for other reasons and either don't want to or can't have children.i call them crazy. marriage is a legal trap. children at least give it a purpose.also i said that >the ability of a couple to really generate children doesn't disrupt, in my opinion, the consolidation of the idea of a family, which is, as i stated, the main purpose of marriage.sounds forced, but if a married couple decide against children isn't however damaging the idea of marriage as a support for family.people still expect them to have children.in fact that was more obvious and forced 50 years ago. now marraige and family find themselves in a crysis and effectively need a reboot ( but i think gay marraige would be a reboot in the opposite direction: complete disruption of the original meaning).
>>196795Then why are people getting married based on being in Love ?Love has nothing to do with making babies, and is actually not even a traditional religious reason to get married, yet love is the sole reason why heterosexuals do get married today.
>>196632>Religion is an institution and not cultural.> not cultural>Religion I'm giving you five minutes to think why this statement makes you sound that you have no understanding of culture or society.
>>196776it has however been accepted quite well, because it's built upon the epocal change in our societies.the main point of marriage, especially as perceived by society, is still the same, the property trade was an addition built upon the need of a refund.it's not needed in modern society because we just have enough money and we don't decide political positions in an hereditary fashion.
>>196768Neither is an appeal to nature for the main crux of your argument, which is, can't make babies.And people are calling you out for having your head stuck in 1432.>>196793If it's the same autistic physics fag, yes.
>>195358This is the argument i bring up all the time. "Tradtional marriages' have changed. A marriage is literally just the joining of two people as one (and a piece of paper with some civil rights attached.)There is no real reason to deny same sex marriages, except being a fucking jerk face about it. There are NO good arguments against same sex marriage. And everytime people pull that 'not adam and steve' line, i picture a 15 year old closet homo. I dont like fried chicken, but i dont deny other people from eating it, just beause it's too greasy and heavy for my easily upset stomach.
Wow guys. I am so sorry. This is not what I wanted from this thread. Can't we just be nice to each other?I guess this counts as proof that /lgbt/ isn't a "hugbox" like a lot of people have been describing it.
>>195523How is marriage religious? Geezous fuck. For centuries before religious marriages, it was always political (think princess and princes/kings and queens...) ugh, people.
>>196849>Love has nothing to do with making babiesright, but it's culturally linked to, at least in marriage.everyone expect a family to be built on 2 people love.because loving parent enviroment is actually useful for a child growth.i still think that marrying someone for love and not wanting children out of that is stupid.i won't reason with that. i will point at these people and call them faggots and laugh at them like a monkey.
>>196879> appealing for niceness> on the Internet, and 4chan no doubt The boat for being civil left as soon as you put this thread on the internet, bud.
>>196879This is still 4chan, and while I was raised on the mostly affable debate of /tg/ I will still argue over literally any issue here.
>>196879Why are you generalizing?What you wanted is never relevant in 4chan.We are being nice to each other though you're obviously way too sensitive to handle anonymous postings hence you should leave.Hugbox? Some others with previous biases may have thought that but NEWSFLASH you fucking dolt, but non-heterosexuals have varied opinions, emotions and ideas. Why would you think otherwise? Are you retarded?
>>196860Still no. If the main point of marriage had been raising children it would never have been since we were raising children thousands of years before marriage.You're basically saying "look, if you remove the reason marriage was created, we can all agree that this is what marriage is about.">it's not needed in modern society because we just have enough money and we don't decide political positions in an hereditary fashion.lel
>>196886Because once the pope made it a religious sacrament in the 11th century to prevent the powers of Western Europe from marrying everybody they could to the Holy Roman Emperor (or future possible Emperor) it's been "religious".Until, you know modernization made shit like marrying for love happen.
>>196951It's time to get off 4chan and read a history book.
>>196930Wow okay. You need to calm down. I didn't say that I thought that about this board, I said that's what people have been saying. Wishing for people to be nice is not the same as being too sensitive to handle the opposite. You need a better way to take out your anger than calling people "fucking dolt" and "retarded" on the internet.I am not your enemy.
>>196897Love in marriage, or love as a prerequisite is a Victorian notion based on Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, who also promoted the idea of the nuclear family to the masses.No, for centuries upon centuries upon centuries NO ONE expected a family to be based on 2 people in love. You're just being willfully ignorant if you believe that.
>>196959no, it's time to read a book about religion and society, or at least read fucking book about culture. If you don't want to do that, at least voluntarily leave the gene pool.
>>196886>How is marriage religious? Geezous fuck. For centuries before religious marriages, it was always political (think princess and princes/kings and queens...) ugh, people.in Europe marriage was almost always religiously celebrated.princesses and kings married in churches.you are confounding the cause with the "how it's done".you don't marry because religion. you marry because you want to rule both france and denmark. but you still marry with religion.outside of few hundred kings the majority of population still had economical exhchange at marriage.why? because otherwise female children would have been killed at birth. cost ineffective for your family economy. so you need to sell them for a cow.but you can't say the point of the entire institution was to get that cow. it's a side effect.the point was that there was a male that wanted a family and children so badly that paid a cow for that.there was also inheritance but that was still based on the family system and not quite guaranteed since you had like 10 sons.
I would marry everyone ITT
>>196215Same. I see the ring as a brand and the term marriage as ownership myself.Still-- i wouldnt deny other people the right to marriage.
>>196990Except it's been 173 years, hell the idea of a singular nation state based on shared language and culture is new in comparison. (1871 Germany)
>>197028And, we're no longer in the era of the black death, pull your head out of 1432.
>>197041True. Essentially there is nothing really traditional about anything in our civilization anymore. Marriage "traditionalists" seem to have no idea that the definition of marriage has changed so many times throughout recorded history. It's a very peculiar ignorance and one that I can only blame on Hollywood, ironically.
>>197084Sometimes I think they're autists, like the fucks who don't understand things like definition and/or sound change.And yeah blame Hollywood, how many movies have I married someone in a church, but we never went anywhere near a courthouse.
>>196947>>it's not needed in modern society because we just have enough money and we don't decide political positions in an hereditary fashion.>lelwas your president elected because his father was president before him? i don't think so.capitalism and free market/instruction mae things possible. you can now be medic even if your father wasn't medic. job isn't 100% passed down the line anymore.even bis societies collapse and arise faster than inheritance speed.>If the main point of marriage had been raising children it would never have been since we were raising children thousands of years before marriage.that's the purpose it assumed down the centuries.i am quite sure families and marriage existed 2200 years ago and it was a succesfull mode for both children and property inheritance, rgardless of why the first marraige has been created.
>>195092 (OP)No problem with gays, don't think combining hetero marriage and homo marriage is a good idea.Hetero marriage grants the participants certain tax breaks and powers to motivate certain behaviors the government values. This includes longer life expectancy, the ability to produce and raise children, less criminal behavior, more economically stable.Marriage between two partners of the same gender is fundamentally different. They should get their own list of powers and tax breaks for their own contributions. I don't even care if they get better deals than heteros if you can prove that it is warranted.Doing a straight (no pun intended) copy paste of benefits from one thing to a different thing is silly, even if a bunch of powers would overlap. Trying to jam it all together is just making everyone get mad about things that shouldn't really be issues such as religion and true definitions of words.P.S. don't force religions to do it.
Only partially through the article, but already the Catholic archbishop seems to have articulated perfectly the teachings of the Catholic church, which regards sacramentally valid marriage as between one man and woman with no previous marriages. To say this means 'they hate gays', etc. is a gross strawman attack, and what's more, doesn't logically follow in the first place.Yes OP, they're out there. They're called good Catholics.
>>197119The government doesn't have the power to force religions to do jack shit, and not having identical government benefits would be a stupid idea and discriminatory.
>>197041I believe it was much earlier, with Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.
>>197140Indeed. The proof that the church hates gays, however, is rather more blatant, like the fact that they have a conversion therapist and suspected abuser, Tony Anatrella, in charge of sexual politics
>>197151It's not discriminatory if they're are too different things. Everyone would be able to marry someone of their own gender and get the same benefits.
>>197119>Get rid of tax breaksIt's a gay tax! Media outrage.>HealthcareAdministration just pushed more of that, can't back off on it now.>Visitation rightsDenying me the right to see my spouse? Media outrage.What do you think would be different?
>>197164>because Seperate but Equal worked super well last time, guys!
>>197118>was your president elected because his father was president before him? i don't think so.>implying there's no political and economic dynasties anymore.There were republics in the middle ages too, idiot.>i am quite sure families and marriage existed 2200 years ago and it was a succesfull mode for both children and property inheritance, rgardless of why the first marraige has been created.>2200 years ago>long timeThe first state societies appeared 8,000 years ago. Of course there was an institution like marriage 2000 years ago
>>197174>Give meat packing plants the same tax breaks as swimming pool recreational facilities!They are different. Different compositions of genders, different benefits to society. Different.
>>197153Rome and Juliet IS A COMEDY MOCKING TEEN ROMANCE
>>197153What, no Romeo and Juliet was number one a play. and Number two taking a piss at courtly romances, which saw courtly love (what we would consider love today) as a bad thing.It's like the only thing you know about Romeo and Juliette is how people use the term I want us to be like Romeo and Juliette.
>>197192People aren't going to want to treat them differently, and you know this.
>>196930Hold on, did you just imply that heterosexuals CAN'T have varied opinions, emotions and ideas?
>>1951851) Gay people can have children from previous marriages or adopt/inseminate so why not give those kids a home to grow up in.2) I am a gay christian and I obviously believe in god even if I do not belong to a specific church. I would prefer to be married because of this belief. 3) I do not consider the old testament to be still relevant today as Jesus brought with him a new covenant with god. This is the whole point of the entire religion and why Jesus had to die etc. The old testament is the old covenant.
>>197162Correct.
>>197198>We are just like Romeo and Juliette>We're happy, young, and hemmoraging blood
I don't support marriage, period. It's an obsolete tradition, and only the religious dimension could possibly be justified. Homosexuals should have no part of it either.
>>197207>happy
>>197193no, because they got married in the play, not for economic reasons, but out of love. And also, >Comedydid you ever studied Shakespearean plays, or are you just that stupid?
>>197200I don't think that's what that anon was implying.
>>195358>Solomon>300 concubines>700 wivesJesus Christ that dude got around.
>>197207Beats Sid and Nancy, the Punk Rock ROmeo and Juliette.>We'll be like Sid and Nancy>Dead from an administered overdoes and Dead from suicide while on trial for administering said overdose. Fuck you creepy.
>>197224I bet you also think the Chekhov wrote tragedies.The only way in which R&J can be taken to not be strictly a comedy is in the classical sense of not being a play that ends in a marriage. In which case this is true, but the play was still satirizing and mocking the idea of teen romance.
>>197222The way you said that gave me a boner.>I need to marry you.
>>195092 (OP)hey i honestly came here from /b/ hoping to find lulz but i found this thread and well i don't hate gays, but i dont support gay marriage, in the christian sense. i have always believed that the wall between church and state is a two way wall, no theocracy, but also no state run religion. i am fine with the government rewriting DOMA to include gay couples and with the idea of state "marriages". what i am not keen on is any government dictating to a religious order of any kind that they must marry these people when they do not wish too. i am also not too keen on religious organizations being forced to pay into birth control or abortions when they do not want either. all in all though gay guys are okay, lesbians can be fucking touchy as shit sometimes, but yeah gay dudes and chicks aren't scum or anything.
>>197119>P.S. don't force religions to do it.This is a fucking red herring and a delusion. NO ONE CARES WHAT YOUR SHITTY RELIGION SAYS ABOUT MARRIAGE -- THIS IS A LEGAL BATTLE.
>>197277>not getting that this isn't about church marriagesYou found it but apparently didn't read it.
>>197277Congrats, you're a reasonable person?No sane people are asking the government to go down and decree that churches marry the dreaded gays.Now run along back to /b/ or find a Tranny thread.
>>197302i could probs find a tranny thread here though........ alsi i think you mean /d/
>>2) Marriage is a union of people under god and most gays aren't religious so marriage would be pointless.This is why I don't agree with gay marriage. I also don't hate gays, I actually support them. And I *do* think they should be allowed to register as a married couple. But I don't like the idea of a same-sex couple marrying in the eyes of god, particularly when they usually aren't religious and particularly when there *is* evidence to suggest that what they're doing doesn't align completely with Christian ideals.I'm not religious, and I do believe that same-sex couples have a right to be legally viewed as married. What I disagree with is the ceremony where both parties join under God.
>>197351>And I *do* think they should be allowed to register as a married couple.>I do believe that same-sex couples have a right to be legally viewed as married.Then you agree with us!Religious marriage ceremonies are 100% exclusive from legal marriage. I can go have a priest or minister perform an elaborate and beautiful marriage ceremony in front of every person I've ever met. Exchanging rings, reciting vows, EVERYTHING.But if we don't go to the courthouse before or after the ceremony to register for a marriage license, that ceremony means NOTHING.No one is talking about religious marriage. No one wants to force churches to marry gays. This is and has always been 100% entirely about LEGAL marriage. Religion is not part of this, despite how much the religious have deluded themselves into thinking it is.
>>196213>statistics show most gays arent religious>MUH ANECDOTE disproves statistics
I wish no one was allowed to marry then we can end all this debate and bullshit. I'm so sick of it. I just want to live with my girlfriend and be happy and not have a piece of paper stop me loving her or sharing a bond, because it doesn't. Sheesh....
>>195185>godstopped reading
>>195092 (OP)I am ambivalent about it; because I believe our legal system is not truly concerned with the morality of the issue. As it stands, at least gay couples can't reproduce. If a government wants to subsidize people getting married and reproducing to maintain a strong taxable population, why would they support gay marriage? I may simply have no faith in the capitalistic entity I believe the US government to be.
