thenumberone : Parents from same sex can't have children so they adopt one. So. Fine, you win. I don't care anymore.

If this is too long, just read what is bolded.



This question is old. Lets make a new question. Gay marriage vs straight marriage doesn't make much sense because people are generally just talking about their feelings. First, what is marriage?


If marriage is simply a political thing, than we can make legal marriage for fish and dinosaurs since all it takes is some paper and ink. However, if marriage is more than paper, it certainly takes more than something the US government can do.



So, we can be married by the US government (but then marriage is just paper and kinda meaningless), another institution (certain religions say that they are married because they have declared it so), the commitment between two people (the special devotion between the two people), or the combo of an institution and the individual commitment (which is very common for ecclesiastic-styled Christians like catholicism and orthodox).



Simply declaring a union doesn't really form any such union. There is no bond between people because an authority says so, even if a religious authority. God could say "you two are now friends", but unless he also creates the trust and disposition towards each other, God's declaration doesn't actually do anything. Instead, trust and disposition towards each other is what actually forms any form of relationship. There is, therefore, no institution necessary for the relationship of marriage.



The disposition is very important. Specifically, marriage requires a romantic disposition and friendship simply platonic. Some things are incapable of certain dispositions, such as a child cannot be romantically inclined because they are not physically developed enough and severe autism hinders even platonic dispositions. So, when we talk about gay marriage vs straight marriage, what we're really asking is Is there such a thing as homosexual romanticism??"



What is romanticism?It cannot be just sexual attraction, otherwise we're married anytime there is a mutual sexual attraction. It cannot be simply a commitment (even if he/she is the most important person in our life), otherwise many siblings, parents and children, and best friends are married. The disposition becomes uniquely romantic when one wishes a sort of "oneness" with the other and "marriage" is the full actualization of this desire. This doesn't mean children, especially because people can be married and never have or desire children. This doesn't mean sex, especially because some people don't even have those parts. Instead, oneness means you want them to be fully engaged in everything you are and vise versa. You don't simply "wish them the best over all others" or "want them to meet the parents", but wishing oneness is closest to wishing total compatibility.So finally, we come to the question "Can homosexuals have total compatibility?



Homosexuality is obviously biological; simply by definition it is the sexual disposition, which absolutely depends upon the body. Therefore, our question on the compatibility and homosexuality must be answered by means of the body.Homosexuals are sexually attracted the same sex, which is obviously much closer to any definition of marriage than between two straight men or women, but it has already been said that marriage is more than sexual attraction.If we were to list the ways in which a man and a woman are compatible vs two men or two women, we would find that the opposite gender couples are more compatible.If we simply look at separation rates or longevity of relationships, straight couples win hands down (though obviously not in all scenarios, I'm speaking generally).



I have no officially tested information or anything like that to support my claims, but I only have my own experience. I live in the Montrose area of Houston, which is the unofficial "gay district" in the downtown area. I have many, many gay friends that live in the area. I have spoken to them on this subject, and every single one of my homosexual friends support my assertion that gay couples have a shorter relationship longevity and more volatile relationships in general. That is my only proof, but it does seem that it is quite certain. From this, it can be understood that same sex couples may come close, but just don't have the capacity for true romanticism.



As for any objections of "how can you say such a horrible thing" or "you don't know because you're not gay", those are all simply attacks upon me, the writer, and not the actual argument. If I have messed up the argument, PLEASE show me where it's wrong. I don't want to be throwing around bad arguments.

In my opinion it's quite legit (easy concept to grasp, logical, more freedom for some people).

 

It's just a strange addition that changes the idea of marriage so dramatically that it's hard to imagine what it all has become.

I have no problem with homosexuality. Except the fact that im gay. So i support gay marriage and all that. I dont see whats wrong with it.

I think people being homosexual or bisexual is fine. It's their choice what they want to do with their life and I'm not going to come and try to take that choice away from them. As for gay marriage and gay adoption I think it should be allowed. Even though some people say you will go to hell if you're a homosexual I think you should be able to take that risk if you want to. And for those saying that the bible forbids homosexuality the bible also says not to use gods name in vain but tell me one single person who hasn't said gosh darnit atleast once.

Not that it matters much to me personally because I'm straight and an atheist.

Zlinqx :

What about my argument? I never used the bible. And is choice the best thing, or are there "better choices"?

For the hundredth time it is not a choice...

Txgangsta :

Well to put it simply some people don't care about getting married as they look at it like something that doesn't matter. However many people want to declare their love publicly (or if their religious it can be required to get married).

So my definition of marriage would be a public declaration of your love to someone. Although depending on your beliefs you might define it differently and that's fine.

Your main argument seems to be that homosexual couples can't love each other like a heterosexual couple can unless I misunderstood it.

The one factual evidence you seemed to use for this was that divorce rates for homosexual couples are higher.
However I actually can't find evidence supporting that infact I've found stuff pointing to the contrary that same sex couples actually have lower divorce rates.

I don't really get what you mean by women and men being more compatible with each other in what way exactly that they're able to have vaginal sex? Because that's really the only thing that I can think about but your argument also said that love is more then a sexual attraction so that doesn't seem to make sense.

Well in any case I do disagree with your argument as there is no actual evidence supporting your claims as fair as I know.
I'm guessing that asking a bisexual person on the matter would be good as they engage in marriage of both the same and the opposite sex so a bisexual persons input could be a good thing.

However as I'm not a homosexual or bisexual I can't truly know if there is a difference.

Also even if your claims were true higher divorce rates among same sex couples could also be because of homosexual couples having lower exposure to the normative pressure of having life long unions

I don't care what other people are doing. I do what I do and they can do what ever. I feel they have as much right to marry the same sex as anyone else has the right to marry the opposite. Who are we to say it is wrong when it is the way they are born? That is like saying having green eyes is wrong or the color of your skin is wrong. I really don't care what others are doing. If you want to marry a dog then good for you, I say more power to you. I believe in freedom, do what you love as long as it only effects you.

GenesisJunkie

Well yeah except for the dog part. A dog doesn't understand a conception of marriage or cant make sentient decisions.

Love is a beautiful thing, and being homosexual is not a choice. A homosexual couple is capable of loving each other just as much as a heterosexual couple. And being homosexual is not a choice. If any two people love each other, why is it not okay for them to be able to marry? It certainly doesn't hurt anyone else, and they're happy. Two more people on the earth attaining happiness is an amazing thing.

My view...well my general opinion of gay marriage is it's simply disgusting, members of the same sex pairing up and trying to mate, simply disgusting appalling and God didn't put male and female here to mate within the same sex, the whole purpose of opposite sex  and sex in general is to mate with the opposite gender  after all only male and female can produce kids not male &male or female & female, but that is my religious standing on the issue/topic of gay marriage. But from a individual rights/law perspective,  as individuals they have the right to the pursuit of happiness so as far as  homosexuals being allowed to wed goes I say let them. I see no real harm with them getting married, if they want to pair up and not reproduce offspring fine let them go on and be happy and get married .

Nymph : Regarding the first part of your post, god didn't put anyone anywhere to do anything mainly because of the fact he might not even exist and only the deceased could know if that's true or not. And if he is real I think it makes more sense that he puts everyone on the earth to do their own free will otherwise he would have created all men and women to be kind people and have no criminals ever but that's certainly not the case.

UFC : The first part of my post regards to my OWN personal life values and religious faith(so I don't understand why your trying to debate with me on that subject).

As to the second part of your post, it ties in to what I said about according to the law and really the  basic un-alienable rights of a(n), or the individual's right to the pursuit of happiness which is basically the  individual's right to free will or pursue what makes you happen as long as it is within the letter of the law, which according to the law you have the right to the pursuit of happiness which justifies the right for homosexuals to marry(which as I stated I think they should be able to from a law and human rights  stand point of view).

I think what you want to argue/debate about with me is my religious view, and if god exists or not. I won't debate with you in this thread about my religious views. I just gave my basic opinion from two different points of views religious wise and human rights wise.

Nymph : Right which is why I immediately said regarding the first part of your post because the second part was fine so you don't need to convince me there. My point about your religious POV is that you are making it sound like it's a fact that god exists and this is how he wants things to be run. I don't care if you believe in him or not good for you, i'm just saying it's easy for me to target bits of your posts if you present it like it's an undeniable fact.

UFC : Your statement here-
" I don't care if you believe in him or not good for you, i'm just saying it's easy for me to target bits of your posts if you present it like it's an undeniable fact."

is incorrent, within my first post I clearly pointed out right after I said this-

" God didn't put male and female here to mate within the same sex, the whole purpose of opposite sex  and sex in general is to mate with the opposite gender  after all only male and female can produce kids not male &male or female & female,"

I pointed out this is my "religious standing on the issue/topic of gay marriage." 

thus because it is a religious standing,  I didn't present it as a undeniable fact. Everyone knows just because it's religion based  religion doesn't mean it's a fact. And due to me pointing out that this is my religious view on the topic, I fail to see how I made my religious view a "undeniable fact". Because of this I see there is no further need for me to argue a obvious religious opinion  with you when I already stated in the first place I agree they should be allowed to marry just as you have agreed as well they should be allowed to marry.

Nymph : you said " God didn't put male and female here to mate within the same sex, the whole purpose of opposite sex  and sex in general is to mate with the opposite gender  after all only male and female can produce kids not male &male or female & female" and then you said it was your own opinion, which doesn't exactly say  that you aren't just trying to cover your tracks after you made them. I'm not picking on you and i'm not trying to make any arguments just saying what i'm seeing.   

UFC :

Your first post says "god didn't put anyone anywhere to do anything mainly because of the fact he might not even exist". Logically, if god "might" exist, then it wouldn't be that "god didn't put anyone anywhere to do anything...", but instead it should say, "god might have not put anyone anywhere to do anything". If you claim agnostic, you gotta stay agnostic.

You also say, "I think it makes more sense that he puts everyone on the earth to do their own free will otherwise he would have created all men and women to be kind people and have no criminals ever". Does this mean that, if there is a god, he supports criminal activity because it is an act of free will? That seems pretty backwards to me.

Anyway, your argument that free will is the greatest good is very common, but it's not actually correct. If I freely choose to shoot up heroin, I have acted freely and chosen the greatest good. However, heroin is highly addictive. There will come a point where I hardly have any free will at all. So, it seems that blind licence is not the best thing. Instead, we should think "heroin is bad for me" and not choose heroin. This case clearly shows that rationality trumps choice; rationality is better than choice. No one should ever choose what is irrational.

I see no problem with it. People can't choose if they like someone or not, they just do. I live in the Netherlands, the first country that made gay marriage available, so that might have to do with it Still, I think it's no problem for people to be gay or bi and to marry each other.

Well first off I can't see how some individuals would find members of their  own gender(sex ) attractive, physically wise. Personally I find the homosexual  lifestyle completely disgusting and I diffidently  wouldn't want my children, grandchildren etc. to be out in the world and see same sex couples engaging in public display of affection. In addition I really don't even know why members of the same sex would even seek a physical relationship with one another after all they can't reproduce that way. But even though I'm against gay marriage morally and it goes completely against my religious views and personal values, as far as gay marriage in the United States goes, I think it should be legalized because of a individuals Civil rights, as well as the basic human rights each person is appointed at birth in this country.