Gay marriage

[Dragoon1140]

okay then explain what you see is wrong about a man and a man or a woman and a woman getting married?

Marriage is a private, religious connection between a man and a woman; it just so happens that it also is a staple in American society.  Marriage should stay a religious affair.  Like I've said four times now, I have no problem with homosexuals having a way of securing their relationship while also tapping into the benefits that marriage offers, as long as it isn't called marriage.

[theloconate]

okay then explain what you see is wrong about a man and a man or a woman and a woman getting married?

Marriage is a private, religious connection between a man and a woman; it just so happens that it also is a staple in American society.  Marriage should stay a religious affair.  Like I've said four times now, I have no problem with homosexuals having a way of securing their relationship while also tapping into the benefits that marriage offers, as long as it isn't called marriage.

How is marriage a religious thing. Does that mean that atheists can't get married too? And why do you have a problem with it being labeled marriage when two gay guys/gals marry. Because its religious?!! Marriage was originally used to make ties between families, not because of religion. Granted they would probably be marrying someone of the same religion but that doesn't make it religious.

[TimerClock14]

okay then explain what you see is wrong about a man and a man or a woman and a woman getting married?

Marriage is a private, religious connection between a man and a woman; it just so happens that it also is a staple in American society.  Marriage should stay a religious affair.  Like I've said four times now, I have no problem with homosexuals having a way of securing their relationship while also tapping into the benefits that marriage offers, as long as it isn't called marriage.

....okay well i could have worded my question better, i guess what i meant to ask was why shouldn't it be called marriage? Most gay couples marry for love, not benefits. Heck, most straight couples do too. Also, I get the private religious connection stuff.

[theloconate]

okay then explain what you see is wrong about a man and a man or a woman and a woman getting married?

Marriage is a private, religious connection between a man and a woman; it just so happens that it also is a staple in American society.  Marriage should stay a religious affair.  Like I've said four times now, I have no problem with homosexuals having a way of securing their relationship while also tapping into the benefits that marriage offers, as long as it isn't called marriage.

Oh ya and I forgot to mention, this is not a religious argument because my country (Canada) and yours are secular nations. So your religious arguments have no merit. of course I'd still be happy to refute them

[Numnut]

I'm going to pull some quotes from a 2008 article by Michael Coren entitled, "Michael Coren on Canada's biggest mistake: Gay marriage."  He makes a lot of interesting points in the article.  A few people have responded to this question saying that government has no place in judging what constitutes marriage.  Coren said, "The state, though, should have a duty to judge and to do so based on its own interests. The most significant of which is its continued existence, meaning that we have to produce children. As procreation is the likely, if not essential, result of marriage between a man and a woman, it is in the interests of the state to encourage marriage.

Of course lesbian couples can have an obliging friend assist them in having a baby, and gay men can adopt or have an obliging friend have one for them, but this is hardly the norm and hardly going to guarantee the longevity of a stable society. Just as significant, it smashes the fundamental concept of a child being produced through an act of love. The donation of bodily fluid by an anonymous person, or that obliging friend again, is an act not of love but of lust, indifference, profit or a mere, well, helping hand.

For the first time not only in Canadian but in world history we are purposefully creating and legitimizing families where there will be either no male or no female role model and parent. Anyone who speaks of uncles, aunts, communities and villages raising children has no real understanding of family life. Single-parent families exist and are sometimes excellent and, obviously, not every mother/father family is a success. But to consciously create unbalanced families where children can never enjoy the profound difference between man and woman, mother and father, is dangerous social engineering."

I agree with Dragoon1140.  Marriage is between a man and a woman.

[moomoose]

as long as there are financial benefits to marriage, it should be available to everyone, not just heterosexual people.  if the marriages arent recognized by religious organizations, thats fine, they dont need to be.  as long as it is a federal institution it should not discriminate.  it really is that simple.

[Numnut]

as long as there are financial benefits to marriage, it should be available to everyone, not just heterosexual people.  if the marriages arent recognized by religious organizations, thats fine, they dont need to be.  as long as it is a federal institution it should not discriminate.  it really is that simple.

Why should the government not be allowed to discriminate?  If government finds that one action is more beneficial than another, shouldn't it reward the people who perform the more beneficial action?  If marriage between a man and a woman is more beneficial to society than marriage between a same sex couple (see my previous post), then why shouldn't government be allowed to discriminate?

Stable society is based around the family unit of a mother and father with children, so government should work to favor the creation of that unit.

[moomoose]

yeah, youre right, it would also be in the best interest of the government to kill those who are deemed to have inferior genetics to improve the gene pool.  also, remove the right to vote for minorities and women.  it would be in the best interest of the nation for women to stay home, cook, clean and do laundry instead of working (theyre not that good at it anyway, right?) and black people shouldn't be allowed to go to school, its a waste of the governments money, theyre just going to drop out and sell drugs anyway, or do sports, which doesnt require much education (until after their careers, but who cares about them then? theyre not useful anymore)

seriously tho, do you really think that the government can make people be straight and produce babies by not allowing gay marriage?  homosexual people are homosexual, saying they might be more likely to be straight if that is the only government recognized union is repugnant.  and last i checked the world is well beyond the population which it can produce the food to support, so the idea that we need everyone to make babies is probably a bit off.

[BC]

Now we're talkin. *gets popcorns*

[Numnut]

yeah, youre right, it would also be in the best interest of the government to kill those who are deemed to have inferior genetics to improve the gene pool.  also, remove the right to vote for minorities and women. 

Seeing as neither of these has proven to be beneficial to society, no, government should not condone them.  However, at least the US government (and I wouldn't be surprised that others as well) have done both of those things.  I don't condone those actions, but I can see why a government would attempt it if it thought that action would be for the betterment of society.

it would be in the best interest of the nation for women to stay home, cook, clean and do laundry instead of working (theyre not that good at it anyway, right?)

Being married with children, this is an interesting topic.  I think that it is best to have one member of the couple stay at home to be the primary homemaker.  Whether that is the husband or wife is up to the couple.  My wife and I came to a mutual decision that she would be the one to stay home.  And just so you don't think that I am keeping her ignorant, she has a bachelors degree, and worked in her profession for a couple of years before we had our first child.

seriously tho, do you really think that the government can make people be straight and produce babies by not allowing gay marriage?  homosexual people are homosexual, saying they might be more likely to be straight if that is the only government recognized union is repugnant. 

I didn't say any of that, and I didn't mean to imply it.  If my use of the the term discriminate indicated that, then I apologize.  I was using it in response to your discussion of financial incentives from the government.

and last i checked the world is well beyond the population which it can produce the food to support, so the idea that we need everyone to make babies is probably a bit off.

As to the idea that the world isn't producing enough food to support itself, I would like to see actual data.  From what I understand it's more logistics than production.  Food just isn't always reaching the areas that could use it.  But I think that would be a post under a different topic.

[theloconate]

Of course lesbian couples can have an obliging friend assist them in having a baby, and gay men can adopt or have an obliging friend have one for them, but this is hardly the norm and hardly going to guarantee the longevity of a stable society. Just as significant, it smashes the fundamental concept of a child being produced through an act of love. The donation of bodily fluid by an anonymous person, or that obliging friend again, is an act not of love but of lust, indifference, profit or a mere, well, helping hand.

For the first time not only in Canadian but in world history we are purposefully creating and legitimizing families where there will be either no male or no female role model and parent. Anyone who speaks of uncles, aunts, communities and villages raising children has no real understanding of family life. Single-parent families exist and are sometimes excellent and, obviously, not every mother/father family is a success. But to consciously create unbalanced families where children can never enjoy the profound difference between man and woman, mother and father, is dangerous social engineering."

I agree with Dragoon1140.  Marriage is between a man and a woman.

First of all if your saying that gay marriage somehow stops a working society because they can't reproduce then you need to re-think your position. Would you say that people who are infertile shouldn't be allowed to marry too?

Also, who gives a crap whether or not the baby is create  through love or other processes. How does that matter? And for that matter why does it matter whether or not there is is an adult male or female in their lives as they are raised (and there probably would be such as aunts uncles and stuff, and yes i do understand family life). By that logic we would also have to take away kids from single parents. Not to mention that having a male and female role in your life doesn't affect how you do in life at all.
-"Studies have found children do not require both a male and female parent," testified Michael Lamb, the head of Cambridge's Department of Social and Developmental Psychology. His testimony was given before U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
It is not dangerous and I challenge you to find me a statistic that demonstrates such.

[theloconate]

As to the idea that the world isn't producing enough food to support itself, I would like to see actual data.  From what I understand it's more logistics than production.  Food just isn't always reaching the areas that could use it.  But I think that would be a post under a different topic.

I completely agree