308 replies to this topic

[Gravitorbox]

Daughter of the Nine Moons, on 23 December 2012 - 12:19 PM, said:

Not logical at all, because by that reasoning if a couple is infertile or chooses not to have children then they shouldn't be permitted to marry

1. That doesn't change the fact that a same sex couple can never have children, so the principle of male + female makes infinitely more sense.

2. In the past when it was more defined people would not get married if they did not plan to have children.

Coffey, on 23 December 2012 - 12:30 PM, said:

Not according to the Oxford dictionary.

Which means you can have same sex marriage by it's definition.

It's a literal redefinition. That's not what it originally meant.

[shadowhive]

Gravitorbox, on 23 December 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

1. That doesn't change the fact that a same sex couple can never have children, so the principle of male + female makes infinitely more sense.

2. In the past when it was more defined people would not get married if they did not plan to have children.

Unless you're planning on campaigning to make marriage unavailable for the elderly, infertile and those that don't want children (which would fail) that arguement is moot.

The past, women also had no say in who they married. Marriage has changed from it's original meaning already, but so have a lot of things. Why can't people get that?

Quote

It's a literal redefinition. That's not what it originally meant.

Words change all the time. How many words do you use the original meaning of?

Edited by shadowhive, 23 December 2012 - 01:02 PM.

[the L]

Okay, after this post I will stop talking about Jesuits. Promise.


They leader is called General. (Interesting story why)
They were known as Schoolmasters of Europe. In less then 100 years they established over 500 schools in Europe. And become influental from South America to China.
Some of interesting figures were educated in those school. Such as Rene Decartes.

Personally I respect that order VERY much.

Edited by the L, 23 December 2012 - 01:02 PM.

[Gravitorbox]

shadowhive, on 23 December 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

Unless you're planning on campaigning to make marriage unavailable for the elderly, infertile and those that don't want children (which would fail) that arguement is moot.

The past, women also had no say in who they married. Marriage has changed from it's original meaning already, but so have a lot of things. Why can't people get that?

If children cannot be had then marriage should not be given to them. That's what I believe.

shadowhive, on 23 December 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

Words change all the time. How many words do you use the original meaning of?

That in a way is the problem.

There is no justification to society as a whole to have an official ceremony for a gay couple - the bond is entirely selfish within those two people. Celebrating a couple getting married to have children for the nation makes sense, because it has to do with national survival. Homosexuality can never be that.

I'm not against civil unions that give visitation rights, though. Tax exemption however I don't believe in, because such a privilege should be given to help with child rearing.

Edited by Gravitorbox, 23 December 2012 - 01:24 PM.

[Darkwind]

Gravitorbox, on 23 December 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

I'm not a Christian. I'm agnostic.

Gay marriage isn't marriage because in every culture it was intended as an economic arrangement between a male and female to create children. Call modern marriage what you will, but that is what marriage was originally meant to be.

With that under consideration it can't be marriage by definition.

You need to rethink that, because it isn't true.  This is a simple easy wiki article.  http://en.wikipedia....same-sex_unions

[shadowhive]

Gravitorbox, on 23 December 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

If children cannot be had then marriage should not be given to them. That's what I believe.

Then you have a big problem, because you can't force people who can't have or don't want children not to marry. If you tried to do so, it would fail and fail spectacularly.

Quote

That in a way is the problem.

There is no justification to society as a whole to have an official ceremony for a gay couple - the bond is entirely selfish within those two people. Celebrating a couple getting married to have children for the nation makes sense, because it has to do with national survival. Homosexuality can never be that.

I'm not against civil unions that give visitation rights, though. Tax exemption however I don't believe in, because such a privilege should be given to help with child rearing.

Why is it selfish?

Like infertile people, gay people do have options. They have the exact same ways of starting a family as infertile hetrosexuals do, so that arguement falls flat too. If a gay couple wants to start a family why should they not reccieve the same treatment as a hetrosexual one? If they recieve different treatment, then you're basically promoting that these families (and children from them) are inferior. Personally, that's the thing that sounds selfish.

[Paracelse]

Gravitorbox, on 23 December 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

If children cannot be had then marriage should not be given to them. That's what I believe.


That in a way is the problem.

There is no justification to society as a whole to have an official ceremony for a gay couple - the bond is entirely selfish within those two people. Celebrating a couple getting married to have children for the nation makes sense, because it has to do with national survival. Homosexuality can never be that.

I'm not against civil unions that give visitation rights, though. Tax exemption however I don't believe in, because such a privilege should be given to help with child rearing.

Do you mean than unless a country has countless more kids in an overpopulated world in which technology has removed several work potentials is not a good country?  We've seen the "Go and multiply" scheme all over the world: hunger and thirst, gazillions of dollars gaveaway made by the poors of rich country to make the rich of poor countries even richer.  Your comment makes me think that children are the next generation of canon fodder.

[Coffey]

Gravitorbox, on 23 December 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

1. That doesn't change the fact that a same sex couple can never have children, so the principle of male + female makes infinitely more sense.

2. In the past when it was more defined people would not get married if they did not plan to have children.


It's a literal redefinition. That's not what it originally meant.

Those things don't matter at all now.

You do not get married for the sake of having children in today's society. Other than the obvious reasons to get married there is legal benefits to marriage, specifically when death is concerned. If your partner dies and you where not married it is far more difficult to sort out money, house and other things. You also don't get widowers pension etc.

I know all this first hand as my Mother lost my Step dad 2 months before they where supposed to get married right at Christmas as well. You can't even begin to imagine the **** she had to deal with. Like his main bank account telling her on the phone that he could only close his bank account and remove the money, she couldn't do it, yet they lived together for 20+ years. The woman on the phone kept repeatedly telling my Mum he had to come to the phone and my mum was repeatedly telling the moron he was dead. She ended the call with do you want me to go and do a seance so you can speak to him.


So why is it fair if 2 men or 2 women are partners for 20 or 30 years and they have to also go through that?! Marriage is a lot about the legal system now, nothing to do with wanting to have children. ( it does also help with legal issues with children though)

Edited by Coffey, 23 December 2012 - 01:54 PM.

[the L]

Paracelse, on 23 December 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

Your comment makes me think that children are the next generation of canon fodder.

Children can be used as weapon. Iranian pasdarans.
Also Chinese are all over the earth. I read recently how in the future we would look like Brazilians. I doubt that.

[Mr Right Wing]

the L, on 23 December 2012 - 11:52 AM, said:

http://www.telegraph...y-marriage.html

"In the fight for the family, the very notion of being – of what being human really means – is being called into question," the Pope said in Italian during an end-of-year speech.

Kind a misleading  title.

The Popes 'falseness of gender identities' is correct.

In the west psychology has been undermined by Liberal ideology. No where in psychology does it say the decision to delist homosexuality as a mental illness was taken because of psychological discoveries. It says it was delisted because of pressure from human rights groups.

Psychological trauma during childhood needs treating and its fallout shouldnt be allowed to undermine the family unit.

[the L]

Mr Right Wing, on 23 December 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

The Popes 'falseness of gender identities' is correct.

In the west psychology has been undermined by Liberal ideology. No where in psychology does it say the decision to delist homosexuality as a mental illness was taken because of psychological discoveries. It says it was delisted because of pressure from human rights groups.

Psychological trauma during childhood needs treating and its fallout shouldnt be allowed to undermine the family unit.

Yes homosexuality was described as illness in encyclopedias and cca 1980 due pressure it was remove from list of illness by USA doctors with no supporting researches.
In some countries is still treated as illness.
I try to search the research based on what they decided it isnt illness anymore. Didnt find it.
Im not saying anything but when you move something from encyclopedia you cant do it based on public opinion.

Edited by the L, 23 December 2012 - 02:31 PM.

[shadowhive]

Mr Right Wing, on 23 December 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

The Popes 'falseness of gender identities' is correct.

In the west psychology has been undermined by Liberal ideology. No where in psychology does it say the decision to delist homosexuality as a mental illness was taken because of psychological discoveries. It says it was delisted because of pressure from human rights groups.

Psychological trauma during childhood needs treating and its fallout shouldnt be allowed to undermine the family unit.

I was surprised that anyone had that backwards thinking.... then I saw it was you and the surprise vanished.

[the L]

I wonder this.If gays got their rights around the globe one day would that open doors to other marriges. Such as woman and dog. Im mean they could realy love eachother. Or pedophiles? Not comparing them just asking. I heard that there is club of pedophiles in one Eu country as legal club. (Political club?)

Edited by the L, 23 December 2012 - 02:37 PM.

[the L]

shadowhive, on 23 December 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

I was surprised that anyone had that backwards thinking.... then I saw it was you and the surprise vanished.

We have freedom of speech. Its forum. Alternative one. So whats alternative in one state in other is law. And otherway around.
Not saying that I support his view (?) but he has right to say so.

And trust me if one dont agree with Mr Right Wing is me. I think that Mr Right Wing knows why.

Edited by the L, 23 December 2012 - 02:37 PM.

[shadowhive]

the L, on 23 December 2012 - 02:30 PM, said:

I wonder this.If gays got their rights around the globe one day would that open doors to other marriges. Such as woman and dog. Im mean they could realy love eachother. Or pedophiles? Not comparing them just asking. I heard that there is club of pedophiles in one Eu country as legal club. (Political club?)

That arguement always seems to come up and, to be honest, it's the dumbest thing I've ever heard and just comes off as scaremongerig.

You not what legalising gay rights will do? Give gay people rights. Not cause the world to end. Not open the door to pedophiles, none of that. Why people seem insistant on acting like that would happen is truly beyond me.