Gay marriage

[Arta]

Remind me why this is bad again? Homophobia doesn't count. Real pragmatic reasons please.

[CrAz3D]

My View:
Civil Unions are okey dokey cause its legal reasons & such.
Marriage is bad cause that has always been a religious thing & most religions don't support homosexuality.
I don't agree w/homosexuality cause it doesn't make sense as to why someone would be gay.  There is no way to 'live on' through your kids, it has no purpose

[hismajesty]

Arta's just trying to start a fight (because he knows someone's  going to pull in religion). We've had this debate before, I don't see why we need it again. I'm highly doubting any of our viewpoints have changed much.

[Arta]

I'm not. If religion is the motivation for someone's disapproval of homosexuality, then I respectfully disagree, and let's not discuss that further. I agree it's a waste of time. I'm really wondering if anyone has a viewpoint that is not religious in its origin.

Crazed: What's the difference between a civil union and a marriage officiated by the state, rather than a church?

[iago]

I've posted this view before, and I'll post it again: people don't choose to be gay; maybe it's something wrong with how they grow up, or maybe it's genetic.  Denying rights to gay people is like denying them to retarded people.  Is it really fair to them?

"We should let gays get married so they can suffer like the rest of us."

[iago]

Funny enough, another post made me think of this thread:

And that's why American soldiers that hold anything of value are equipped with cyanide capsules.

How is it that America is so much against gay marriages, but condones suicide?

As I recall, suicide is one of the greatest sins somebody can commit, and guarentees them a place in Hell.  I don't remember ever hearing about the "gay" section of Hell, where the homosexuals go. 

[CrAz3D]

I'm not. If religion is the motivation for someone's disapproval of homosexuality, then I respectfully disagree, and let's not discuss that further. I agree it's a waste of time. I'm really wondering if anyone has a viewpoint that is not religious in its origin.

Crazed: What's the difference between a civil union and a marriage officiated by the state, rather than a church?

I feel that a civil union would just be a government acknowledged union between 2 people.  Marriage has more religious connotations I think.  I think its more that people don't want homos (homo is being derogatory in this instance) participating in the sacred ceremony of matrimony.

[Arta]

I don't see what's sacred about a marriage officiated by government. When people get married out of church here, the go to a registry office, and have a secular ceremony. There's no mention of God. I don't see why religions should be allowed to monopolise marriage. What's the difference between a 'civil' marriage and "government acknowleding a union between two people"? I really don't see any distinction.

[Adron]

I'm really wondering if anyone has a viewpoint that is not religious in its origin.

In order to maintain a strong population growth, the state may want to give benefits to those who have children. In line with that is punishment of those who will not have children, i.e. homosexuals.

[Invert]

I'm really wondering if anyone has a viewpoint that is not religious in its origin.

In order to maintain a strong population growth, the state may want to give benefits to those who have children. In line with that is punishment of those who will not have children, i.e. homosexuals.

Homosexuals adopt children. Flawed argument, next.

[dxoigmn]

I'm really wondering if anyone has a viewpoint that is not religious in its origin.

In order to maintain a strong population growth, the state may want to give benefits to those who have children. In line with that is punishment of those who will not have children, i.e. homosexuals.

Homosexuals adopt children. Flawed argument, next.

There is a different between status quo (adoption) and growth. The argument is not flawed.

[Adron]

Homosexuals adopt children. Flawed argument, next.

Make it the question of producing children, not of raising them. Homosexual couples require artifical insemination to produce children, a less efficient way. Unless they are bisexual, which should be fully embraced by the government.

[Arta]

There are a vast number of children that need adoptive parents. I agree with invert.

[Adron]

There are a vast number of children that need adoptive parents. I agree with invert.

There is also a vast number of heterosexual families with size <= 4, as well as families otherwise unable to have children. Finally, they can be taken care of in nursing homes. There is truly no need to create homosexual families only for the purpose of taking care of parentless children.

[Arta]

Not all heterosexual families want that many children. Many homosexual couples do want some children. Nonetheless, I agree that one should not create homosexual families for the sole, specific purpose of increasing the number of potential adoptive families. I only mean that the question of children isn't really relevant, because homosexual couples can raise children just as well as heterosexual couples.