Why Are You Against Same Sex Marriage?

You're looking at it all wrong.

Elderly people can procreate in principle if each person was younger and fertile.
Homosexual couples can procreate in principle if each one is a different gender and fertile.

Basically, the rule is "I don't like gay people so I want to dictate what they can and can't do because it makes my head hurt to shut up and mind my own business." <---just apply that to every comment and it starts to make sense.

 

Sure seems that way. The underlying reasons probably their religious beliefs.

Freedom should mean the same thing for everyone..........(without prejudice against gender, race etc)

 

They don't want to ban same-sex marriage. They want anybody that doesn't look and/or love like they do to get the hell out of "their country" preferably by mass suicide so they don't have to foot the bill for a mass exodus.

Glad I could help.

 

In their minds, it does. Freedom to do as they please AND freedom to tell everybody else what to do as they (the one in everybody else's business) please.

 

Who marries who is really no one's business but the couple themselves. Marriage is a choice. not a necessity. TWo people living together and sharing their life is a form of " marriage"........(partnership) And there are many ways to have afamily now. A married man and woman still can use surrogate woman to carry and deliver their children. So"marraigne " is not the main reason for procreation.

 

You don't have to convince me. I stay out of other people's business. I won't deal with abusive people or some criminals but, outside those parameters, I don't judge people and I have more than enough managing my own life. I don't have the time, even if I had the interest (and I don't) to mind other people's business too.

Instead of inventing drugs, alcohol and blood pressure medicine, they should make something that makes people mind their own business. You wouldn't believe how peaceful it is to stay out of other people's stuff.

 

You do understand some of us feel that family heritage is important. In fact, I would say that is the building block that made America! Do you understand Karl Marx hated the family structure? He hated the idea of inheritance? What you just described was just the beginning of '"Karl's delight" . I don't know about you, but I am sticking with family. Family is deep, and family is committed. You may want to call the "village" a family, but I'm not buying it. Blood is pretty thick, and adopted children can become a part of that. I don't disparage the unfortunate circumstances that arise. Judeo Christian marriage is the only institution that stands between the individual freedom in this nation and the collectivism I refer to as American Marxism.

 

Maybe we have test tube babies raised by robots and make them gender neutral at birth. Or how 'bout engineering them to be hermorphidite so they can truly be independent?

 

That leaves a lot of possibilities. Especially when one has no purpose in life. I don't want to live in that hedonistic culture. Even atheists acknowledge there is an order to things. Electrons spin around a nucleus. The earth revolves around the sun....not pluto. So people just want to do whatever. Well it appears you see no structure to this existance, but I will just leave you with this thought...."There is a way that seems right to a man/women, but the way thereof is the way of death".

"There is nothing new under the sun"....it's all been done before. When will they ever learn.

 

No one is advocating ending families or inheritance — same sex marriage actually increases both. It is absurd to push this conversation into Marxism.

Why do you feel your religious believes should be able to deprive others of rights. Do you feel the same of Muslim faith? Satanic faith? Should other religions be able to encode their religious practices into law?

 

“Test tube babies” will eventually be a very real thing. Robots raising children will also very likely happen.

What does this have to do with the legal and civil contract of marriage?

 

In principle is irrelevant to legal contracts. You keep demanding others admit it as ultimate reasoning to shut down the fact that you don’t really have a legal argument but it seems everyone here disagrees. As do our courts.

 

Here is where you are failing to support your assertion. You instead use circular reasoning of marriage exists because of procreation in principle, because procreations causes marriage to be needed. But you never support outside that circle. Throughout history and across cultures, marriage has been used for many reasons, including many which have nothing to do with procreation. More marriages in history were about power and wealth and business and treaties than were about procreation. Even in cultures that had same sex marriages, and incest marriages, and especially ghost marriages, those principles remained with procreation being a secondary consideration if at all.

In the case of law, especially in the US, but in many other countries as well, marriage is a legal tool for establishing legal relationships for the purposes of certain legal benefits, only a few of which deal with procreation. In fact, almost all laws that deal with the offspring of two couples exist whether or not that couple are married or not.

So by this logic, an intersexed person, whose gonads never developed to give the ability, in principle, to create either eggs or sperm, can never be married, because they cannot even in principle procreate.

This is where you are factually wrong. The label of marriage, the use of the word, does not, never has, and never will, belong to only one society, religion, legal system, person, or any other entity of any type. The is not, has not been, nor ever will be, only one definition of marriage. Even religiously, there are many religions that state that the union between two men or two women is a marriage. You cannot provide anything objective to show what a marriage is. It is a human invention, a human concept, and as such it is subject to the many different definitions that have occurred across history and culture, and all the different ones that will arise in the future.

 

There were a few of the original "Twilight Zone" episodes with that exact theme.

 

That is what you were exposed to but that was not the reality world wide, nor a consistent one throughout history. Most Americans and western Europeans are only exposed to the Christian view, which is only one among many, not the only one. It was never designed. It evolved organically in multiple cultures.

That is a subjective statement and view. If it wasn't important, then same sex couples, and interracial couples would never have fought for it.

This is more of a reflection of the legal marriage concept, and not the relationship itself. Many people are living together, working together, raising their children together and staying together after the children are grown, all without getting that government piece of paper. Tell me, which is more important, how the couple live, or whether or not they went before a cleric or a government official?

IOW, the gays are taking marriage more seriously than the straights are.

.

Where does interracial marriage fall on this slippery slope? As I recall, same sex marriage was one of the results that opponents warned about if interracial marriage was ever allowed.

It is no more being redefined than one man one woman was a redefining from the days of permissible and sanctified polygyny.

They did. Civil Union. But the opponents didn't want that to apply to all of the legal institution, and never made the rights the same and equal. It was always made lesser.

Which original intent? There have been many throughout history. What about the original intent that the father chooses the husband of his daughters? Or the original intent that some sort of wealth be exchanged in order that the marriage be allowed?

And there is your error. There are many faiths that have different definitions of marriage that yours does. In fact there are sects of Christianity that hold that if you are not married in their specific denomination, then that is not a true marriage. The legal definition of marriage does not have to match any given religious one. Is a couple married before God any less married in the religious sense because they do not have the permission of their local/national government. Is a couple married before the state any less eligible for legal benefits because they never went before a cleric?

 

This is the point that you have never made the connection on besides your circular reasoning of "because of in principle procreation". If procreation does not require marriage, as you have admitted, and marriage does not require procreation, as you have admitted, then what is the purpose of marriage?

 

Subjective. In fact, until recently, historically speaking, love was considered a detriment to marriage, not a reason for it, especially in western cultures. That idea persisted even into the 18th century and later. Marriage has existed for a large variety of reason and purposes, including some that were based upon procreation. The lie is that was the only reason ever in history.

 

We have no idea of what the future holds. Who knows what society and culture will look like a thousand years from now.......IF we don't self destruct........mainly because some will not get along with others or accept others as they are. and recognize that everyone deserves the same in a constructive functioning society. And given that CHANGE is the only constant in life.........we must adapt to the changes as they happen.

 

The part that confuses me is heterosexual marriage and family are not the epitome of perfection. There is NOT enough love in the world. Why try to limit people who actually love one another and want the same rights as heterosexual couples?

I think that's preferable to one part of a couple staying in the closet and miserable the whole time because they are expected to conform to somebody else's opinion about what "love" can look like.

I've mentioned it in other posts but it bears repeating. My birth family is extremely abusive. They have always hated me and have hurt me in more ways that I've lost count. However, I have wonderful friends, people that don't hit me, kick me, yell at me, try to get me fired, don't try to steal from me, etc..

Yet, because of our very traditional and short-society, NONE of those of people have the right to speak for me should I become incapacitated and decisions have to be made about end-of-life decisions. Yes, I have an Advanced Directive and a Power-of-Attorney for Health but all of that would be ignored in a real life situation and doctors would defer to my "biological next of kin". I'm not gay (and it should be clear by now that I have no issues with gay people) but I completely *get* the reasons behind wanting to legalize same sex marriages across the country. If two people love one another (in a same sex romantic relationship or a platonic friendship (as is my case) why should anybody else decide what is "best" for me)? Why does someone else get to blame and shame me because I just drew the short straw when it comes to "family"? Why must I be forced to have my final days, hours of life surrounded by people that have done nothing but hurt me repeatedly, sometimes to the point of broken bones and hospitalization?

Why can YOU (not, you personally) tell me how deep and truly loving my relationships with my friends are? A very, very good friend committed suicide and I was devastated at the time. I knew he was hurting and I tried to help. He begged off saying he didn't want to burden me (it wouldn't have been a burden) and two weeks later he was gone. At the time, I was on a support group for adults abused as children and posted about my friend's death and my grief. 99% of the people that responded basically said "Get over it. It's not like he was "real" family". Oh, yes, he was. I was closer to him than I was/am my own brother. Unlike my birth family, he never once hung up on me. He never once told me to kill myself. He never once raised a hand to me. He was a very, very wonderful person and I still miss him and love him to this day. I miss and love my birth family but that's because of who *I* am and not because of them and certainly not because they deserve it.

When heterosexual couples stop sneaking around having affairs, bringing in outside kids, and generally screwing up their own lives and their children (in the crossfire), they don't have the right to tell anybody what "marriage" is supposed to look like.

 

Or how about one woman and 5 men? Less pregnancies over all, but a higher chance of one. Might even have better overall track record.

 

Exactly.....It is a man made construct. ( social. cultural and legal) Religion factors in Perhaps you know......but when was the idea of "marraige" as we applyititto relationships.......begin?? Who were the first married people?? A marriage is a contract-agreement-between two people. (or two entities .......)

For some it is a religious based notion. For others it is just business......or a legal contract. Society has glorified with their own traditions.& beliefs.

 

At one point it was, IIRC, Pope Innocent in the 12th or 13th century. It was under his term that the church declared, for the first time, that all marriages had to happen before the church to be valid in the eyes of God, and in many cases, government, since the church bullied most of them.

 

The word marriage has had many meanings across history and time. The ability to have sex, even "in principle" as someone else might say, has not always been a part of that definition. This is especially true of ghost marriages, which has been a part of several cultures throughout history, many eastern. There is no changing of the definition. If anything, it is the opponents of SSM attempting to eliminate the definitions they don't like.

 

The idea that the meaning is diminished is a subjective one. To others, it's an enhancement. As is, we have already many times used hyphenated marriage terms. Mixed marriage, interracial marriage, Jewish marriage. Fot that matter we have religious marriage and legal marriage. It's only the opponents of SSM, and previously interracial marriage, who have tried to artificially conflate religious marriage with legal marriage, especially in a country where no one religious definition can legally hold sway.

 

The issue of civil rights to a civil institution and the raping of businesses' private property right and freedom of association are two different subjects that should not be conflated.