Marriage Equality and Other MOGAI/Queer Rights

[Obscure_Trash]

I'm personally against it.

In my opinion (and religion) I personally think against gay relationships and marriges. This is backed by the opinion that, well, it simply wasn't meant to happen.

 

The body is meant for a guy and a girl to... get together to have a child. If the world's people were to suddenly all turn towards same sex relationships, where would the next generation go? Simply put, it wouldn't be there.

Source for the first part?

 

And there are plenty of ways to have male/male and female/female (and etc.) sex. Just because girls are the socket and boys are the plug doesn't mean we automatically go together. ;3

[thegreenrobby]

So....what about people who are infertile? Before marriage, should everyone get a fertility test to see if they can produce children, and if they can't, they shouldn't get married? Or heavens, old people getting married, should they be illegal too?

 

Not to mention, plenty of homosexual behavior is documented in animals, so it's not as unnatural as you think.

No, not at all.

I know that people love each other, even if they aren't able to have children. And quite frankly, I believe that the elderly should be able to understand love, as well as the infertile, but I still don't think that it seems, well, right. Sure, not all relationships lead to children, but I believe that that's what the Lord's intention of it was.

As for the animals, I never knew.

Source for the first part?

 

And there are plenty of ways to have male/male and female/female (and etc.) sex. Just because girls are the socket and boys are the plug doesn't mean we automatically go together. ;3

Well, you can't have a child with two sockets or two plugs. Wasn't childbirth the prime reason for all of this, anyways?

[Rosedamai]

No, not at all.

I know that people love each other, even if they aren't able to have children. And quite frankly, I believe that the elderly should be able to understand love, as well as the infertile, but I still don't think that it seems, well, right. Sure, not all relationships lead to children, but I believe that that's what the Lord's intention of it was.

As for the animals, I never knew.

 

Well, you can't have a child with two sockets or two plugs. Wasn't childbirth the prime reason for all of this, anyways?

Uh...you said that two heterosexuals who understand love should get together, but....two homosexuals who do love each other can't? If childbirth is the prime reason for marriage, then those people should be excluded too, and if love is the prime reason for marriage, two consenting adults should get married, don't you think? And uh...regarding religious views: I think it's okay that under certain religions certain acts are prohibited. Hell, Buddhism condemns eating meat. I don't see any Buddhists around here that burns down butcher shops and tells us that we're all sinning, though. People from different religious views should be allowed to do whatever they want, because they're not under the religious doctrine that you are, right?

 

ETA: And sorry if it sounds offensive, but if a marriage=kids is what the lord intended, why would the lord make some people infertile?

 

And no, childbirth isn't the prime reason for marriage. It's been used as a power-consolidating tool(the Borgias), as a good way to earn some quick cash, and to show off status (trophy wives). And if it is, as I've said, people should get infertility checkups before marriage, but the fact that there isn't one prevalent shows that having kids are not the main reason for marriage.

 

ETA: If childbirth is the reason for marriage, then all women and men, when they first have periods/wet dreams, should be able to get married-but that doesn't happen.

Edited April 27, 2012 by ylangylang

[Obscure_Trash]

No, not at all.

I know that people love each other, even if they aren't able to have children. And quite frankly, I believe that the elderly should be able to understand love, as well as the infertile, but I still don't think that it seems, well, right. Sure, not all relationships lead to children, but I believe that that's what the Lord's intention of it was.

As for the animals, I never knew.

 

Well, you can't have a child with two sockets or two plugs. Wasn't childbirth the prime reason for all of this, anyways?

If all relationships are to create babies, then we also wouldn't be social creatures who crave friendship and company.

[thegreenrobby]

If all relationships are to create babies, then we also wouldn't be social creatures who crave friendship and company.

No, not all relationships. In the case, my 'this' meant sexual relations. I have several relationships with various people, and they are all friend/family relations. I'm social, and there's no sexual activity, hence invalidating your point.

 

PS: I think it's interesting that we are allowed to have this type of discussion, considering just about every other forum policy.

[Rosedamai]

No, not all relationships. In the case, my 'this' meant sexual relations. I have several relationships with various people, and they are all friend/family relations. I'm social, and there's no sexual activity, hence invalidating your point.

 

PS: I think it's interesting that we are allowed to have this type of discussion, considering just about every other forum policy.

Sexual relationships are not just done for childbirth any more. Sure, it's probably meant to procreate, but it can be used in a variety of ways, much like how your ears were originally meant to hear things but can be used to wear earrings, a place to support your glasses, a source of humor at dinner parties, so on. Like this, sex can be used for bonding, for showing hierarchy, for violence, as a way to earn money...all multitude of ways. If it was solely for procreating, we would have no sexual thoughts outside of when we're in heat, and that's not what happens.

[Obscure_Trash]

No, not all relationships. In the case, my 'this' meant sexual relations. I have several relationships with various people, and they are all friend/family relations. I'm social, and there's no sexual activity, hence invalidating your point.

 

PS: I think it's interesting that we are allowed to have this type of discussion, considering just about every other forum policy.

Except that not even purely sexual relationships are for/just for making babies, never mind dating-type relationships.

Also, what would be the point of marriage? If the point is simply children, why bring love into it? Shouldn't men go around sowing as many oats as they can?

 

This discussion has been PG-13 so far.

 

I know that people love each other, even if they aren't able to have children.

 

Then what's wrong with gay marriage? Also, gays can adopt (or do in vitro or such). What's wrong with more parents (to also bring anti-gay adoption rules into this)? 3=

Edited April 27, 2012 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Princess Artemis]

Hell, Buddhism condemns eating meat. I don't see any Buddhists around here that burns down butcher shops and tells us that we're all sinning, though. People from different religious views should be allowed to do whatever they want, because they're not under the religious doctrine that you are, right?

I personally haven't seen anyone around here burn down anything for any reason, although one of the wildfires near my house was a suspected arson. I have heard of things getting burned down for all manner of reasons, thought not frequently that Buddhists have done so for religious reasons.

 

That said, so long as it's legal (in a libertarian sense, which tends to feel a good deal more ought be legal than currently is) and not harming anyone but the individual who choses to act, I've got no particular issue with people living lives that don't conform to my religion. I would have a problem with them doing whatever they want (given whatever someone wants to do could be quite harmful to others), and religiously, if their actions were against my religion, I would not judge them but I certainly would have no issue saying that such and such an act was not how I believed life was meant to be.

[Rosedamai]

That said, so long as it's legal (in a libertarian sense, which tends to feel a good deal more ought be legal than currently is) and not harming anyone but the individual who choses to act, I've got no particular issue with people living lives that don't conform to my religion.  I would have a problem with them doing whatever they want (given whatever someone wants to do could be quite harmful to others), and religiously, if their actions were against my religion, I would not judge them but I certainly would have no issue saying that such and such an act was not how I believed life was meant to be.

Touche, I should have clarified what I was trying to say. Thanks!

What I meant that I see no Buddhists, say, trying to stop the sale of meat; shouldn't have used an extreme example. And I do agree with the libertarian sense that you provide in your post.

Edited April 27, 2012 by ylangylang

[loudwhitenoise]

Well, you can't have a child with two sockets or two plugs.

What about mutations? There are reported incidences of boys with two 'plugs' or women with two uteri. Admittedly, one or both in this situation are often non-functional, but it can happen. Nature loves to throw us surprises. Seen the pictures of two-headed animals?

 

This is something that extends the anti-argument quite far:

 

 

As for my viewpoint, I'm pro for it even though I am straight and never plan to get married (or at least wait until I'm like 40 or something old). If two sapient beings love each other then why can they not be bonded under law?

 

And what about the future if we meet aliens, or make true sapient AIs? I seriously doubt anyone would manage to procreate in that situation, but a lot of sci-fi stories have situations where a human and a non-human sapient fall in love. ... Consider, also, transsexuals, or hermaphrodites, or aliens that have more than two genders, or ones that use parthenogenisis. To have babies is not the be all and end all. Why should you interfere with anyone elses happiness? And if it doesn't work out in the end, whats that saying? 'better to have loved and lost..."?

/ramble

[thegreenrobby]

Except that not even purely sexual relationships are for/just for making babies, never mind dating-type relationships.

Also, what would be the point of marriage? If the point is simply children, why bring love into it? Shouldn't men go around sowing as many oats as they can?

 

This discussion has been PG-13 so far.

 

 

 

Then what's wrong with gay marriage? Also, gays can adopt (or do in vitro or such). What's wrong with more parents (to also bring anti-gay adoption rules into this)? 3=

Let me simplify this in a metaphor. First, go grab your favorite cereal box, even if it's empty.

The top of a foldable box lid can lock together, right? Note: it has a tab and a slot. If the box were to have two tabs, it wouldn't stay closed, as neither two slots.

Eh?

 

What about mutations? There are reported incidences of boys with two 'plugs' or women with two uteri. Admittedly, one or both in this situation are often non-functional, but it can happen. Nature loves to throw us surprises. Seen the pictures of two-headed animals?

*Headdesk*

No, I meant you can't 'create' a child if you and your significant other have the same parts.

[Rosedamai]

Let me simplify this in a metaphor. First, go grab your favorite cereal box, even if it's empty.

The top of a foldable box lid can lock together, right? Note: it has a tab and a slot. If the box were to have two tabs, it wouldn't stay closed, as neither two slots.

Eh?

Uh, you're implying that people get married just so that they can have sex, which isn't true.

 

Not only that, but there are other ways of having sex without using your private parts, so...

[Zovesta]

Why do you think procreation is so important? Aren't there enough unwanted children in this world already? =/

[Predat0rs]

I support gay marriage. Simply put: Anyone should be able to have anyone as their partner, regardless of gender.

As for the intimate aspect of it, many STRAIGHT couples engage in similar intimate relations as gays/lesbians. I see no problem there.

As I see it, there's only one difference between gay/lesbian marriage and straight marriage. The sex organs. Other than that, why should anyone even care? Are you so worried about 's touching? or 's touching? Lmfao!

IMO, anyone with a problem with gay marriage, I feel they have an unhealthy obsession with other peoples' social lives (more appropriate than what I was originally thinking).

 

As far as procreation - gay marriage is beautiful! They adopt unwanted children! Beautiful <3

Edited April 27, 2012 by predatorfan4ever

[Zovesta]

Well said, predatorfan4ever. You very neatly summed up my opinion as well. c:

[St. Jimmy]

Let me simplify this in a metaphor. First, go grab your favorite cereal box, even if it's empty.

The top of a foldable box lid can lock together, right? Note: it has a tab and a slot. If the box were to have two tabs, it wouldn't stay closed, as neither two slots.

Eh?

Last I checked, I wasn't a cereal box.

[Ripan]

And last I checked, tabs and slots of cereal boxes didn't have emotions such as love.

[diannethegeek]

The body is meant for a guy and a girl to... get together to have a child. If the world's people were to suddenly all turn towards same sex relationships, where would the next generation go? Simply put, it wouldn't be there.

I don't understand where this idea comes from that legalizing gay marriage will suddenly make everyone want to be gay. Do people really think that's how homosexuality works? (rhetorical question: I know some people actually think it works like that).

[Princess Artemis]

This is something that extends the anti-argument quite far:

As funny as this comic is, guess what it has as a title? "The Other Slippery Slopes". Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies.

[elderberrysyrup]

The top of a foldable box lid can lock together, right? Note: it has a tab and a slot. If the box were to have two tabs, it wouldn't stay closed, as neither two slots.

Implying that marriage can't work without a penis and a vagina. Really. Love ain't a cereal box, bub.

[elderberrysyrup]

As funny as this comic is, guess what it has as a title? "The Other Slippery Slopes". Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies.

I'm pretty sure he's just pointing out the slippery slope of 'but if we let gays get married, peeps gonna get jiggy with their pets' by saying 'by that logic...'

[KageSora]

As funny as this comic is, guess what it has as a title? "The Other Slippery Slopes". Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies.

I'm pretty sure that's the point--he's trying to point out how ridiculous it is for the people who say "But if gays get married, people will want to marry their siblings/pets/kitchen appliances!" (Seriously sad that I've seen the argument "If we let gays get married, next people will want to marry their toasters or something"...)

[Obscure_Trash]

Let me simplify this in a metaphor. First, go grab your favorite cereal box, even if it's empty.

The top of a foldable box lid can lock together, right? Note: it has a tab and a slot. If the box were to have two tabs, it wouldn't stay closed, as neither two slots.

Eh?

My sister always rips those tabs and then I just push the two top pieces down into each other.

 

~

 

To share some news:

 

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/chris...012/04/27/38638

 

Two Christian state senators debating Colorado’s civil union bill – Senate Bill 2 – yesterday decided to quote Bible passages and proselytize from the Senate floor, including telling gay people to choose Jesus over their same-sex partner.

 

“I truly believe Jesus is a better answer than Senate Bill 2,” Senator Scott Renfroe told his colleagues  – and every Colorado citizen. Choose Jesus over the person you want to spend the rest of your life with, Renfroe says.

 

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/...boy-scouts?lite

 

Jennifer Tyrrell and her 7-year-old son have had many rewarding experiences with the Boy Scouts of America, but their participation in the national organization came to an end because she is gay, and the group does not allow open or avowed homosexuals in their membership.

 

=\ This is part of the reason I loved gs so much. So many of us were lesbians, anyway. x3

 

Boooooo.

 

 

:>

 

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/20...-wedding/51562/

 

A little less than a year after gay marriage was legalized in New York state, Christine Quinn, New York City Council speaker, will wed her girlfriend, Kim M. Catullo. The date is set for May 19, the location arranged at the Highline Stages at 440 West 15th Street; the invitations have been sent; the jewelry and hair and outfits and caterer have been determined. As in, it's a wedding like any other wedding. Except, it's a gay wedding, and Quinn is, quite possibly, going to make a run for New York City Mayor.

 

Yay~

Edited April 27, 2012 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Salicana]

 

:>

 

A few months ago, I was waiting for my boyfriend to get done with a doctor's appointment. In the waiting room with another doctor was a man and his male fiance. When the man introduced his fiance without hesitation, I couldn't help but smile. I had just moved from the Bible belt where that kind of announcement might get you a sermon. But here in Vermont (gay marriage has been legalized for awhile here), it was just so wonderfully different to hear this man say "And this is my fiance."

 

That story reminded me of this =3

[Princess Artemis]

I'm pretty sure he's just pointing out the slippery slope of 'but if we let gays get married, peeps gonna get jiggy with their pets' by saying 'by that logic...'

Yes, he was, but the person in this thread who quoted it was using it as an argument against someone who was not making any such slippery slope arguments. In fact, the person who posted the comic was making some really absurd arguments about 'well what about when we meet space aliens, what will you think then, huh, huh?'

 

My point was that the comic is funny but not a good argument against a person's beliefs that marriage = men and women exactly because the comic is a slippery slope argument.