It becomes a civil right ONLY when its denied to a certain section of the population. Why should some be granted the contract and right of marriage and others refused it?

Morals are both subjective and logical, as most people in the western world have had a similiar education, understanding of what is right and what is wrong and therefore have a grasping of human morality and their responsibility to society.

We know its wrong to kill another human being, so thats logical as its a shared opinion by society. Minor issues though, become much more subjective, for example is it acceptable for a couple to have sex in a public environment or for a human being to take advantage of another human being financially?

As one o' them queerosexuals, I don't really care about marriage. I don't need a piece of paper to make my love 'official', and it's always been a religious thing in my eyes anyway.

That said, I don't see why anyone should be stopped from marrying someone of their own gender. What's the big deal?

This is what I'd like hip hop bunny hop to address if he wants to take issues with what we're saying. I think there are some clear-cut issues here I shall raise again:

(1). WHY should anyone be "stopped from marrying someone of their own gender"? I am asking for something a little more than Franco's retort that marriage is "traditionally" between a man and a woman, I'd like to hear a clear moral reason, and some form of justification as to why your objection is greater than people's right to love each other.

(2). This is the most important part: What the fuck gives anyone the right to direct how other people live their lives? How could anyone possibly think they are in any position to dictate who I want to marry or express my love for? It's MY life, and any kind of biases you have are completely irrelevant and should be kept to yourself.

(3). Consequences of gay marriage: I saw Rubato post an interesting little pie chart detailing the consequences very clearly:

http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/...aymarriage.gif

So, what I'd like from anyone arguing against is some form of address to these issues, which so far I've failed to find.

I know hip hop bunny hop is very good at finding links which may support his position, but I would like something a little more relevant than Tablet next time please, which Unknown Soldier, as a catholic, claimed was a poor source.

I'll encapsulate my argument in brief, as I've already addressed that point on this board several times, and I touched on it in this thread before Pepe entered the discussion.

Anyways, in regards to the point you labelled #1, same-sex couples are allowed to have private ceremonies and all that. There is no law preventing them from doing so. In the context of the USA, the arguments regarding homosexual marriage have to do with state recognized marriage. So, there is nothing interfering with the ritual of marriage or their ability to love one another.

I, however, object to state recognized marriage same sex marriage because:

To which you may point out not all married couples have children, to which I'd say:


In regards to the point you labelled #2;

All of these quotes were pulled from this article, which is the same old "Secular Case Against Gay Marriage" which I've quoted far too many times on this board.... LINK to it here

Below is a quote from earlier pages in this thread from myself, which remains relevant, and should serve as a helpful jump to pre-Pepe discussion of the issue.

The points you've raised for state recognized marriage are really just a bucket full of holes.

Point 1- Collecting a deceased's social security shouldn't really be an issue in a same sex marriage, as there is a strong liklihood that both partners would've been paying contributions anyway and why shouldn't a the partner of a deceased collect contributions that their partner has worked for and paid into, unless you're trying to claim that the marriage union could've been done with this future ulterior motive in mind!

Point 2- Getting cover under a spouse's health insurance needn't be an issue either, in the USA health insurance comes as part of a workers package right? Or the person taking out the health insurance pays a premium dependent on their health and who is covered? If this be the case, insurance companies are taking a calculated risk with those that they cover, insurance companies as far as I'm aware usually make a nice profit otherwise they wouldn't be in business.

Point 3- "The propagation of society is a compelling state interest" Now that statement is extremely debatable, in a country with a falling population that may hold some truth, but does the USA have a decling population problem?

It will, if gays marry. DO YOU WANT TO LIVE IN A COUNTRY LIKE THAT?

Honestly, I think that given the state of the world, I place more value in couples who can't, or choose not to procreate.

/misanthropy

NO. I won't be happy till the earth is so over populated that we run out of resources and resort to cannibalism.

I've always wanted to try a piece of human thigh

WTF happened to Skeltezons post?

Looks like he deleted it.

Unknown Soldier,

Are you kidding me. You honestly seem to think that Minnesota is the most homophobe place in the world. Go live in Africa, the hate of homosexuals are bigger. I mean in my native country, if you are homosexual, most people try their best not to help you and if you were beat up then many people would walk by and laugh. Uganda had attempted to legalize a law that legalize killing Homosxauls for being gay.

They EAT DA POO POO

like ice cream

Whether gays marry or not, has no affect on the birth rates of a country. I've been led to believe, that gay men are not normally in the habit of fathering children;) so whether they are married or not is really irrelevent.

Yes I am kidding you, I stated that Minnesota had homophobes that lived in shacks, you and a few other people, that is all.

I really don't know why you're bringing the African example into this debate, the USA like Western Europe are democracies, where individual rights and freedom of choice are given facts of life. The hostilities and hatreds of the developing world, should have no place within these democracies.

No matter how many times I see that, it never gets old. :laughing:

Have you ever seen the remix?

HHBH, just come out of the closet already. You'll be a lot happier for it.

OK, you've quoted from this source here: Secular case against gay marriage, but in that I haven't seen any external support for any of the points he made there whatsoever, and I'm frankly very mistrustful of that source.
This comes from the chilling conclusion to his article that reads as follows:
Here, it really just seems to collapse onto the wearisome argument that marriage between homosexuals is the first step in a deterioration of morals and the cheapening of marriage.
This, as I need not point out is a fallacy known as a "slippery slope" argument. Why? Because it relies on assuming that there will be a trend in the requests for civil rights here, and that soon people will start bending the definition of marriage further here.

Like it or not, the whole article makes an extremely controversial assumption: that love ISN'T the main reason for marriage, or at least should be ruled out of the question when MONEY is thought of.

Personally, when I get married it is because I love the other person, not because I already want children. As Unknown Soldier has very kindly pointed out, why is "propagating the population" so damn important? There's definitely no sign of decline, world overcrowding is becoming a very serious problem with food and natural resources being stretched over an increasingly large number.

I have tons more to say here, but I shall have to finish with one final observation before the strange man with the whip comes along to drag me away to that strange homoerotic wrestling match where they make us young teenagers fight naked, and that is the following:

For goodness sake, there's no suggestion made by anyone that this is going to happen. There are separate laws, such as laws against incest, which forbid them. It's showing that he's effectively putting gay marriage in the same boat as incest.

External support for what, exactly?


[QUOTE=Salami;1160659 As Unknown Soldier has very kindly pointed out, why is "propagating the population" so damn important? There's definitely no sign of decline, world overcrowding is becoming a very serious problem with food and natural resources being stretched over an increasingly large number.[/QUOTE]

If that's what you believe, why would you argue for an extension of marriage benefits to more people in society? Why not just get rid of them entirelly?

The rest of your post doesn't deal with what I said, the quotes I pulled from the article, or the general point of my post.

Correct; so, why should the rest of society subsidize their marriages?

Because, they themselves are helping to subsidize the marriages of the society that they belong to.

Huh. I won't deny it: I'm disappointed with you. I expected more than three two simple questions and a rude observation. I was hoping for some real fire and for my post to be sliced in pieces with the aid of many scholarly research papers. Even a bit of trolling would have been warmly appreciated, such telling me I ought to be at school or that I'm too young to understand. Well, here goes anyway...

I personally find a lot of the claims there to be be made out to be from US law, and that this article was stating it to be the case. For instance:
Where in US law does it say that? Where in US law does it say that "propagating society" is the most important reason for marriage? I think that for issues so important, some kind of reference would be expected.
This here doesn't give credit to what I think is marriage as a whole. It's not about money, neither is it solely for increasing the population. It's a way of publically expressing your love for another person, and starting a family. The function of the family itself isn't money either, and I don't think that offspring should be necessary for a family to be recognised.This is more like it: completely ignoring what was my critique of the article you referenced.
Come on, I'm sure there was a lot in there that was directly relevant to what you quoted, just have a bash and tell me why I'm wrong about it.
You aren't purposely forgetting that financial commitments are being made by the gay people themselves? They pay like everyone else, society doesn't have a rule that marriages ought only to be permitted if children are planned.

OK, let me ask you a question: supposing that gay marriage were to be proposed WITHOUT any form of state subsidy whatsoever. Would you still object even if you as a taxpayer weren't in any way paying for it?

Single people and non-married couples also help subsidize marriages of the society to which they belong.

They can already do this.

True, and they also have the right to marry.
But would you object? I'm asking whether your objection to gay marriage is for financial reasons or if there are moral objections too.

Those single people and non-married couples have chosen not to marry, but should they choose to marry the option is there. Giving gays the right to marry, is just giving them the same rights and choices in life that hetrosexuals have.

Like Salami, I'm actually disappointed that you've not actually put forward a better argument here, basically you've danced around the main issues here and have just sought to put up a few obstacles, by putting up side-tracking links and trying to form an argument against gay marriage purely based on economic factors. You've not once really tackled the issues of love, relationships, morality or what marriage actually means, believe it or not, it should not be about the economic burden that it puts on society, but about a contract between two human beings.

Actually, they have the same exact rights as do heterosexuals. Hence why the laws are about marriage of people of the same sex; sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. Two straight men can not marry one another; two gay men may not marry one another; yet, a gay man could marry a gay woman, etc, etc. :D

Why don't I argue about love, morality, or the meaning of marriage of relationships? Because love is not something conferred on a relationship by a state; nor does state recognition make a marriage moral; nor does it give a marriage meaning.

However, the state currently does confer economic benefits on married couples. Hence, I argue economics.

Stop with bull**** accusations. Let me make this clear: I AM NOT A HOMOPHOBE. Get that in your stupid head of yours. Just because I oppose gay marriage does not mean I AM A HOMOPHOBE. Same with Hip Hop Bunny Hop. Stop it, it makes your statement look nothing.

I mentioned Africa because homophobia there is higher. I was born in Nebraska but I am a Congolese descedent and I am repsectful to gay people. Just today I spoke to a gay person and I had a great conversation with him. I am a African man and I respect gay people. Most Africans would love to see gays suffer because they think that gays are not humans. In fact I am willing to hang with a homosexual. My parents dislike homos a lot. They made it clear that I am not allowed to bring homosexuals in my house.

Stop the bull****. I respect gay people.

You argue economics, as its the only angle that you've got here, so lets not go kidding people on that one anymore.

The state obviously has no control over love, neither does it make marriage moral, but what it does do, is sanction a contract between two people who decide to marry for love, companionship or a shared interest. Most people look for a stake in life, whether that be a home, financial security, personal happiness or the contract of marriage etc. Do you really think that a person should be denied any of these if no law-breaking has taken place?

What! Your parents don't allow gays in your shack!!!

Again you're blabbering on about not being a homophobe, about how respectful you are to them, how nice they are, how its cool that they can live together in perfect harmony, you even shocked me on an earlier thread, when you said it was cool that they could adopt children! All this makes your anti-gay marriage stance quite simply startling!

Lets be honest here FPK, you don't approve of gays their lifestyles and what they do and you don't honestly expect anybody on here to believe that you do. You made your biggest error on post 91, where you stated that gays should be allowed to parent children (whether you mean that through a surrogate mother, adoption or fostering etc is besides the point) How can you possibly give gays the right of being parents, but deny them the right of marriage! Below is where you dropped this clanger.

http://www.musicbanter.com/current-e...tional-10.html

You've either overlooked that point or its just a case of a homphobe troll slipping up, I'd say it was the latter option.

I've really just come to the conclusion that it's in-just for the government to recognize marriages and hand out benefits based on it. Even recognizing any kind of civil union deeply compromises our equality by making the assumption to reward a certain life-style.

What the hell matters. You are once again making dumb accusations as you always tend to do when someone does not see your way. All you want to do is make fun of me simply because I am not for gay marriage. I already stated that Gays should be able to adopt children and gays should be able to serve the army openly. That is common sense. Yes I don't agree with Gay Lifestyle but I respect gay people. I don't make up stuff when I SAY I ACTUALLY MEET GAY PEOPLE. I am very respectful towards them and I always talk them in a normal way. I am never scared seeing a homosexual. I will always talk to them if they want to talk to me. I am nice to them.

This notion that I hate homosexuals are lies. US, I know you hate people who don't see your view 100 percent but understand everyone has different opinions.

You cannot claim to "respect gay people" while simultaneously arguing that they do not deserve the same rights as straight people

if this statement is in any way meant to be serious, then it is pathetic and condescending because it completely refuses to accept that the right to marry is equivalent to the right to marry a certain gender. If it's part of a serious argument, it is despicable. Ok then, if this is the case I'd like you to give some evidence that gay marriage will pose a significant financial drain on society, and take into account that they pay into society as much as anyone else.
I find it impossible to accept that you should deny them a right they have themselves been paying towards.
if you like gay people, could you tell me why you wish to deny them a right they really want?

This paragraph that you've written above, serves as the perfect example of your inability to express yourself in a cohesive manner, its full of contradictions, oversights and you basically sound like a slobbering half-wit, but lets not get into chucking cheap insults here and get down to tackling the nitty griitty of the matter here, that you've been good enough to provide above.

How the hell can you approve of gay people parenting children and yet deny them the right of marriage! Has it not even ocurred to you, that the parenting of children by gays is going to be a far more contentious issue than that of gay marriage? One is the simple union between two people who have decided to undertake this union, the other is a responsibility by both parents for the raising and caring of children in a stable environment and a far more serious undertaking, you cannot allow one and yet deny the other. Children need a stable environment in which to grow up, parents don't have to be married to provide that stable environment, but the marriage union is still held sancrosanct by many families and the choice should always be there.

As for why you've typed "I am never scared of seeing a homosexual" above, is simply beyond me! What are you on about, do you actually know how silly you sound, I guess you do but you simply don't care.

Normally I would've stopped attempting to debate with you a long time ago, but if this thread is going to continue, I only think its fair that someone should counter your irrational idiosyncrasies on here and expose them for the nonsense that they are.

I have to say FPK, people on MB welcome a good debate and differing opinions make the forum tick, but your moronic trolling just makes you a laughing stock on here.

Unknown Soldier is absolutely right here, you have to accept that adopting children is far more contraversial and much less accepted than gay marriage.
Remember, gay marriage is merely a union between two people who love each other, but bringing up children is really only possible in a family and means that the couple are trusted with nurturing the child and fulfilling the roles of a parent, which requires as a necessity to be in a family institution.
More people dislike this because they are concerned about the "possible" detrimental effect of having two fathers or two mothers will have on the child, whereas you must accept that a gay marriage is a union between two people which affects no one else.

Please read through this properly, I am not accusing you here of "hating gay people", I'm trying to say that Unknown Soldier is correct in saying that your position of opposing gay marriage is inconsistent with what you are claiming here. We aren't making "dumb accusations", we're saying that we find that what you're writing here is inconsistent with your argument.

Unknown Soldier,

Do I care what other people think? NOPE. You are once again insulting me for not seeing YOUR WAY. You have a tendency to dice other people because they don't see it your way. I am sorry to say but it is so true. You do not need to make fun of me for disagreeing with you.

I made it clear that I am for Gay raising children because they should be able to. Plus gay people should be able to serve the army openly.

You are a person who likes to insult people because they don't see it your way. Sorry sir, but not everyone will see it your way. So sorry to say.

You sure care enough to tell us how much you don't care, so thanks for sharing that with us, Franco.

I think this is the second time this thread has been locked for this reason!