Total Posts:179|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Question to Anti Gay Marriage folk

JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 3:32:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Something I constantly hear from those who oppose gay marriage is that allowing gay people to have the title of "marriage" will mean that marriage as an institution will apparently get "damaged or destroyed", but as far as I know, I've never actually seen those Anti-SSM folk ever actually specify how the legalisation of SSM would destroy marriage or indeed how legalised SSM would have any other meaningful negative effect. Could someone fill me in please?
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 3:52:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
http://web.law.und.edu...

Well, Marriage is a union contract between a man and a woman, because only from a man and a woman can you expect offspring, so basically the act is to protect the woman and the offspring.

What's the purpose of even calling same sex dudes union a marriage ?!!! it's trying to equal them to a man/woman marriage ?!
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 4:21:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Here, let me flip a light switch on in here.

Gen 2:21 So YHWH Elohim caused a deep sleep to fall on the man, and he slept. And He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place.
Gen 2:22 And the rib which YHWH Elohim had taken from the man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man.
Gen 2:23 And the man said, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh. This one is called "woman," because she was taken out of man."
Gen 2:24 For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.

That's much brighter, and better.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 8:25:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 7:24:33 PM, Sower4GS wrote:
What? Nobody wants to argue the truth?? That's a first around here.....

Because it gets boring when people quote novels.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 8:37:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 7:24:33 PM, Sower4GS wrote:
What? Nobody wants to argue the truth?? That's a first around here.....

What would you like to argue?
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 8:39:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 3:52:23 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
http://web.law.und.edu...

Well, Marriage is a union contract between a man and a woman, because only from a man and a woman can you expect offspring, so basically the act is to protect the woman and the offspring.

Should barren couples be denied the right to get married?


What's the purpose of even calling same sex dudes union a marriage ?!!! it's trying to equal them to a man/woman marriage ?!
StevenDixon
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 8:41:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 3:52:23 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
http://web.law.und.edu...

Well, Marriage is a union contract between a man and a woman, because only from a man and a woman can you expect offspring, so basically the act is to protect the woman and the offspring.

What's the purpose of even calling same sex dudes union a marriage ?!!! it's trying to equal them to a man/woman marriage ?!

Well now it is, it was a union contract between a man and woman of the same race. We changed that definition. In many other countries even before america was an established country, homosexual marriage was allowed.

Woman and men that are sterile can still be married, so if that is the reason, why should they allowed to be married? Either way, gay couples can infact have offspring and they can also adopt(which would be incredibly beneficial to that child and the less children in our orphanages and foster homes, the less money tax payer money has to go to that).
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 8:56:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Besides being all throughout the Tanakh (OT), read 1 Corinthians 6:9
1 Corinthians 6:9 Here let me give you a hand, and if you think YHWH is not serious, think again. Don't believe in YHWH?.....OHHH, you wll...most certainly, up or down, you will...

(CJB) Don't you know that unrighteous people will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't delude yourselves " people who engage in sex before marriage, who worship idols, who engage in sex after marriage with someone other than their spouse, who engage in active or passive homosexuality,

(GNB) Surely you know that the wicked will not possess God's Kingdom. Do not fool yourselves; people who are immoral or who worship idols or are adulterers or homosexual perverts

(KJV) Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

(KJV+) (G2228) KnowG1492 ye notG3756 thatG3754 the unrighteousG94 shall notG3756 inheritG2816 the kingdomG932 of God?G2316 Be notG3361 deceived:G4105 neitherG3777 fornicators,G4205 norG3777 idolaters,G1496 norG3777 adulterers,G3432 norG3777 effeminate,G3120 norG3777 abusers of themselves with mankind,G733

(The Scriptures 1998+) Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the reign of Elohim? Do not be deceived. Neither those who whore, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,
Sower4GS
Posts: 1,718
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 8:59:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
And no, the chapter and verse is not a coincidence, consider it a warning...YHWH is real, open your eye's it is obvious....
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 9:02:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 8:59:03 PM, Sower4GS wrote:
And no, the chapter and verse is not a coincidence, consider it a warning...YHWH is real, open your eye's it is obvious....

If it was obvious we wouldn't need the Bible.
DakotaKrafick
Posts: 1,517
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 9:05:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 8:59:03 PM, Sower4GS wrote:
And no, the chapter and verse is not a coincidence, consider it a warning...YHWH is real, open your eye's it is obvious....

So... what do you want to argue?
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 9:23:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 3:52:23 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
http://web.law.und.edu...

Well, Marriage is a union contract between a man and a woman, because only from a man and a woman can you expect offspring,

Well, no, that's not true. Synthetic human sperm was created at a university in Newcastle, and synthetic eggs have been derived from mouse skin samples. So, it is no longer a requirement that we have both a man and a woman to create a child.

so basically the act is to protect the woman and the offspring.

From what?


What's the purpose of even calling same sex dudes union a marriage ?!!!

What's the purpose of even calling some different sex peoples union a marriage?

it's trying to equal them to a man/woman marriage ?!

Yes, and why shouldn't they be equal?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2013 9:25:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 9:23:14 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/27/2013 3:52:23 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
http://web.law.und.edu...

Well, Marriage is a union contract between a man and a woman, because only from a man and a woman can you expect offspring,

Well, no, that's not true. Synthetic human sperm was created at a university in Newcastle, and synthetic eggs have been derived from mouse skin samples. So, it is no longer a requirement that we have both a man and a woman to create a child.

My mistake, human eggs have also been created. As such, we no longer require a man or a woman. We can create children, purely autonomously.


so basically the act is to protect the woman and the offspring.

From what?


What's the purpose of even calling same sex dudes union a marriage ?!!!

What's the purpose of even calling some different sex peoples union a marriage?

it's trying to equal them to a man/woman marriage ?!

Yes, and why shouldn't they be equal?
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 12:17:47 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 3:32:31 PM, JonMilne wrote:
Something I constantly hear from those who oppose gay marriage is that allowing gay people to have the title of "marriage" will mean that marriage as an institution will apparently get "damaged or destroyed", but as far as I know, I've never actually seen those Anti-SSM folk ever actually specify how the legalisation of SSM would destroy marriage or indeed how legalised SSM would have any other meaningful negative effect. Could someone fill me in please?

Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage in every society around the world has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage rather than the good of the children or the social order has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 12:20:33 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Think of it this way...

You sign a contract and you agree to uphold the contract... then someway down the road someone decides to change the nature of the contract. If someone did that you'd probably feel cheated and or threatened in your abiding of this contract which suddenly changed on you.

That's how we feel about marriage. Everytime you change the marriage contract you devalue it.
StevenDixon
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 12:34:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 12:20:33 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Think of it this way...

You sign a contract and you agree to uphold the contract... then someway down the road someone decides to change the nature of the contract. If someone did that you'd probably feel cheated and or threatened in your abiding of this contract which suddenly changed on you.

That's how we feel about marriage. Everytime you change the marriage contract you devalue it.

Nothing about your specific contract changes, the ONLY thing that changes is that same sex couples get the same thing. That's it, it doesn't change YOUR marriage at all.

A better analogy, if I made a contract with someone where I payed them 100 bucs and they'd return 125 and I got upset because he allowed someone else to pay them 100 bucs and get 125 returned to him. Does the second deal devalue the first deal? no.

The reason your analogy is bad is because it implies that allowing others to have the same contract somehow makes your marriage less valuable...if this is your position then your marriage is fucked because you define it's value based on the amount of people that engage in the contract.
StevenDixon
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 12:36:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also you said "every" time you change the contract you devalue it, if this is honestly your position then you're claiming when it was changed to allow people outside of their own ethnicity marry each other, it was somehow devalued. Which...is a mindblowing position to hold, I don't think you hold it though, just that you haven't really thought that statement through.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 12:42:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 3:32:31 PM, JonMilne wrote:
Something I constantly hear from those who oppose gay marriage is that allowing gay people to have the title of "marriage" will mean that marriage as an institution will apparently get "damaged or destroyed", but as far as I know, I've never actually seen those Anti-SSM folk ever actually specify how the legalisation of SSM would destroy marriage or indeed how legalised SSM would have any other meaningful negative effect. Could someone fill me in please?

If same sex marriages irreparably damaged the "sanctity of the institution of marriage" or presented an "existential threat to the moral fabric of our national integrity" etc. etc. etc. then I would expect Massachusetts to have become nothing less than a modern day Gomorra (as Gomorra is portrayed by ignorant religious zealots who think that the story of Sodom and Gomorra is actually about homosexuality). It's not, if anyone was wondering.
Tsar of DDO
StevenDixon
Posts: 178
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 12:46:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
It's no coincidence that all of the people on this site arguing against homosexual marriage are religious.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 12:48:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 12:34:19 AM, StevenDixon wrote:
At 5/28/2013 12:20:33 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Think of it this way...

You sign a contract and you agree to uphold the contract... then someway down the road someone decides to change the nature of the contract. If someone did that you'd probably feel cheated and or threatened in your abiding of this contract which suddenly changed on you.

That's how we feel about marriage. Everytime you change the marriage contract you devalue it.

Nothing about your specific contract changes, the ONLY thing that changes is that same sex couples get the same thing. That's it, it doesn't change YOUR marriage at all.

A better analogy, if I made a contract with someone where I payed them 100 bucs and they'd return 125 and I got upset because he allowed someone else to pay them 100 bucs and get 125 returned to him. Does the second deal devalue the first deal? no.

The reason your analogy is bad is because it implies that allowing others to have the same contract somehow makes your marriage less valuable...if this is your position then your marriage is fucked because you define it's value based on the amount of people that engage in the contract.

Yes but say the original contract said only YOU would receive that deal, if you contracted it out to other people you'd feel cheated and unspecial. Which is how pro-traditional marriage people feel.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 12:48:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 3:32:31 PM, JonMilne wrote:
Something I constantly hear from those who oppose gay marriage is that allowing gay people to have the title of "marriage" will mean that marriage as an institution will apparently get "damaged or destroyed", but as far as I know, I've never actually seen those Anti-SSM folk ever actually specify how the legalisation of SSM would destroy marriage or indeed how legalised SSM would have any other meaningful negative effect. Could someone fill me in please?

They don't, they just claim it.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 12:52:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 12:17:47 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 5/27/2013 3:32:31 PM, JonMilne wrote:
Something I constantly hear from those who oppose gay marriage is that allowing gay people to have the title of "marriage" will mean that marriage as an institution will apparently get "damaged or destroyed", but as far as I know, I've never actually seen those Anti-SSM folk ever actually specify how the legalisation of SSM would destroy marriage or indeed how legalised SSM would have any other meaningful negative effect. Could someone fill me in please?

Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage in every society around the world has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment. As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage rather than the good of the children or the social order has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences. When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years. Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them, as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

Same-sex marriage existed in Rome (Emperor Nero had one at one point), Ancient Egypt, Ancient Greece, and references are also found in Assyrian texts. I wouldn't call all of that recent. Same-sex marriage disappeared with the founding of Abrahamic religions, and is making a resurgence primarily due to the increasing logical challenges for biblical literalists.
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 3:27:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 3:52:23 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
http://web.law.und.edu...

Well, Marriage is a union contract between a man and a woman, because only from a man and a woman can you expect offspring, so basically the act is to protect the woman and the offspring.

You can have legally acquired genetic offspring in a marriage between two men or two women. To list some examples:

"Opposite-sex divorce and same-sex remarriage.
"Extramarital relations with an opposite-sex partner
"Doctor-assisted artificial insemanation (same-sex female couples and unpartnered mothers).
"Ye Olde Turkey-Baster
a02;With a helpful guy friend (same-sex female couples and unpartnered mothers)
a02;With a helpful birth surrogate (same-sex male couples and infertile opposite-sex couples)
"Same-sex zygotic fusion and nuclear transplantation (to the best of my knowledge, it's not yet possible, but we're close)

And there's also the means to acquire custody of non-descendant genetic kin be it through adoption of siblings' kids due to death or adversity, or adoption of biological grandchildren due to death or adversity (ex: Madelyn and Stanley Dunham). And then of course there's stuff like Adoption, Foster Care, and custody of stepchildren after the death of a remarried spouse that are available as means to legally acquire children of non-genetic lines. The only unique ways straight couples have of acquiring children come from natural conception and from adoption from religious agencies that don't serve same sex couples. A same sex couple when married can help protect the partners and the offspring.

What's the purpose of even calling same sex dudes union a marriage ?!!! it's trying to equal them to a man/woman marriage ?!

Why do man and woman need a marriage label either?
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 3:35:30 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 12:17:47 AM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 5/27/2013 3:32:31 PM, JonMilne wrote:
Something I constantly hear from those who oppose gay marriage is that allowing gay people to have the title of "marriage" will mean that marriage as an institution will apparently get "damaged or destroyed", but as far as I know, I've never actually seen those Anti-SSM folk ever actually specify how the legalisation of SSM would destroy marriage or indeed how legalised SSM would have any other meaningful negative effect. Could someone fill me in please?

Until recently, the primary purpose of marriage in every society around the world has been procreation. In the 20th century, Western societies downplayed the procreative aspect of marriage, much to our detriment.

What has been the result of this "detriment"?

As a result, the happiness of the parties to the marriage rather than the good of the children or the social order has become its primary end, with disastrous consequences.

Such as?

When married persons care more about themselves than their responsibilities to their children and society, they become more willing to abandon these responsibilities, leading to broken homes, a plummeting birthrate, and countless other social pathologies that have become rampant over the last 40 years.

Statistics? Also, how does it follow that believing a marriage should actually contain love and shouldn't be just because society deems it prudent for you to marry by a certain age and you should stay married regardless of how unhappy and loveless your marriage feels?

Homosexual marriage is not the cause for any of these pathologies, but it will exacerbate them

How?

as the granting of marital benefits to a category of sexual relationships that are necessarily sterile can only widen the separation between marriage and procreation.

Same-sex couples are not "darwinian dead ends" any more than adoption, grandparental and filial support, military and police self-sacrifice, intraspecies symbiosis, and other forms of altruism and social management are dead ends. Same-sex couples are neither uniquely nor de facto childless. Both same and opposite-sex couples are the full-time legal guardians of their own offspring and others'. But that's OK, because even if this were true I don't actually understand how this even matters. I don't understand why an opposite-sex remarried partner's past children count for more than a same-sex remarried partner's past children. I don't understand why the future children that a same-sex couple can't have count for more than the future children that an infertile opposite-sex couple can't have. I don't even understand why a couple's fecundity has anything at all to do with their legal recognition. The fact that same-sex couples can't make babies but opposite-sex couples can seems to have about as much to do with marriage licenses as the fact that humans can make cars but dogs can't has to do with drivers' licenses. They can't, but that's not the reason why.

Banning gay marriage doesn't stop gays from walking kissing, sleeping, or living together. It doesn't even stop them from getting married, it doesn't stop anyone from referring to them as spouses, and it sure doesn't stop them from creating children or having a family. What it does do is make it harder for committed or married (but unrecognized) couples to manage their family, which I would think is the one thing that everyone ought to agree same-sex couples should be allowed to do.
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 3:40:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 12:48:02 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 5/28/2013 12:34:19 AM, StevenDixon wrote:
At 5/28/2013 12:20:33 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Think of it this way...

You sign a contract and you agree to uphold the contract... then someway down the road someone decides to change the nature of the contract. If someone did that you'd probably feel cheated and or threatened in your abiding of this contract which suddenly changed on you.

That's how we feel about marriage. Everytime you change the marriage contract you devalue it.

Nothing about your specific contract changes, the ONLY thing that changes is that same sex couples get the same thing. That's it, it doesn't change YOUR marriage at all.

A better analogy, if I made a contract with someone where I payed them 100 bucs and they'd return 125 and I got upset because he allowed someone else to pay them 100 bucs and get 125 returned to him. Does the second deal devalue the first deal? no.

The reason your analogy is bad is because it implies that allowing others to have the same contract somehow makes your marriage less valuable...if this is your position then your marriage is fucked because you define it's value based on the amount of people that engage in the contract.

Yes but say the original contract said only YOU would receive that deal, if you contracted it out to other people you'd feel cheated and unspecial. Which is how pro-traditional marriage people feel.

And on what basis do you believe that only straight couples have a monopoly on marriage? Or indeed religious people. Plus, did marriage get devalued when the "deal" was extended from just "whites sticking to whites and blacks sticking to blacks" to "interracial marriage"? Or how about when the "deal" was extended so that women were no longer considered property? By your very logic, the men had every right to feel aggrieved because by allowing women more rights marriage was therefore getting devalued.
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 4:32:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 8:39:54 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 5/27/2013 3:52:23 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
http://web.law.und.edu...

Well, Marriage is a union contract between a man and a woman, because only from a man and a woman can you expect offspring, so basically the act is to protect the woman and the offspring.

Should barren couples be denied the right to get married?

No, we've seen barren people end up having a child, but never same gender "couples" huh.

What's the purpose of even calling same sex dudes union a marriage ?!!! it's trying to equal them to a man/woman marriage ?!
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 4:47:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 8:41:42 PM, StevenDixon wrote:
At 5/27/2013 3:52:23 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
http://web.law.und.edu...

Well, Marriage is a union contract between a man and a woman, because only from a man and a woman can you expect offspring, so basically the act is to protect the woman and the offspring.

What's the purpose of even calling same sex dudes union a marriage ?!!! it's trying to equal them to a man/woman marriage ?!


Well now it is, it was a union contract between a man and woman of the same race. We changed that definition. In many other countries even before america was an established country, homosexual marriage was allowed.

Correction: between a male and female from the same kind , race doesn't matter in biology, and didn't matter in the past, only when the white dudes though they are more beautiful or smarter or something! but inter race marriage always existed!

Woman and men that are sterile can still be married, so if that is the reason, why should they allowed to be married? Either way, gay couples can infact have offspring and they can also adopt(which would be incredibly beneficial to that child and the less children in our orphanages and foster homes, the less money tax payer money has to go to that).

Because sterility is a special condition, so the general rule still apply. also because a barren person , can still get kids! this did happen, but never happen in same gender couples! but the spouse can chose whether he or she want to stay with a sterile person.

This is what you think about adoption from Homos, in fact this is not the ideal situation for a child, he isn't with his parents, and isn't even in a regular family, those Homos do it for their selfish desires, if they want to help they would rather donate!
Fruitytree
Posts: 2,176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 4:53:24 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/27/2013 9:23:14 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 5/27/2013 3:52:23 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
http://web.law.und.edu...

Well, Marriage is a union contract between a man and a woman, because only from a man and a woman can you expect offspring,

Well, no, that's not true. Synthetic human sperm was created at a university in Newcastle, and synthetic eggs have been derived from mouse skin samples. So, it is no longer a requirement that we have both a man and a woman to create a child.


Did you notice I'm talking about sex and relationships ?!

so basically the act is to protect the woman and the offspring.

From what?

Contracts are to protect rights of parties involved, a woman once she has kids maybe in need for support, so tying the father with a contract is good, and the kids need enough stability.

What's the purpose of even calling same sex dudes union a marriage ?!!!

What's the purpose of even calling some different sex peoples union a marriage?

re-read the above!

it's trying to equal them to a man/woman marriage ?!


They are not and will never ben the ideal sexual couple is male/female, the only productive couple! same sex are nothing biologically , just a waste!
JonMilne
Posts: 1,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/28/2013 5:23:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 5/28/2013 4:47:54 AM, Fruitytree wrote:
At 5/27/2013 8:41:42 PM, StevenDixon wrote:
At 5/27/2013 3:52:23 PM, Fruitytree wrote:
http://web.law.und.edu...

Well, Marriage is a union contract between a man and a woman, because only from a man and a woman can you expect offspring, so basically the act is to protect the woman and the offspring.

What's the purpose of even calling same sex dudes union a marriage ?!!! it's trying to equal them to a man/woman marriage ?!


Well now it is, it was a union contract between a man and woman of the same race. We changed that definition. In many other countries even before america was an established country, homosexual marriage was allowed.

Correction: between a male and female from the same kind , race doesn't matter in biology, and didn't matter in the past, only when the white dudes though they are more beautiful or smarter or something! but inter race marriage always existed!

Uh, actually, it DID matter. Interracial marriage was forbidden by Christian customs due to verses like Numbers 36:6, Ezra 10:2-3, Nehemiah 13:27, Malachi 2:11, and of course the big one of Deuteronemy 7:3-4. So actually, thanks to Christian beliefs, interracial marriage remained illegal.

Woman and men that are sterile can still be married, so if that is the reason, why should they allowed to be married? Either way, gay couples can infact have offspring and they can also adopt(which would be incredibly beneficial to that child and the less children in our orphanages and foster homes, the less money tax payer money has to go to that).

Because sterility is a special condition, so the general rule still apply. also because a barren person , can still get kids! this did happen, but never happen in same gender couples! but the spouse can chose whether he or she want to stay with a sterile person.

See my post above which highlights the numerous different ways same sex couples can legally acquire children. There are only two ways straight couples can get children that gay couples can not - and that is by natural conception and by adoption from religious agencies that don't serve same sex couples.

This is what you think about adoption from Homos, in fact this is not the ideal situation for a child, he isn't with his parents, and isn't even in a regular family, those Homos do it for their selfish desires, if they want to help they would rather donate!

Actually, reliable studies have shown that children are no worse off with two parents of the same gender who are gay than they are with two opposite gender parents. Plus, giving children to gay couples provides two very clear benefits - 1) the fact that since gay couples cannot conceive naturally, it means they are generally more likely than straight couples who give birth via natural conception to have actually planned for a baby thus meaning the baby will be very likely entering into a stable household that can provide for it, and 2) having gay parents for a child will mean that the child will learn a considerable amount about diversity and tolerance, since it will be coming into a minority group family.