Gay Marriage is a fad

[ISpeakToo]

Other than the obvious, the primary difference between a heterosexual and homosexual couple is reproduction. Reproduction is consistent one of most fundamental laws in nature. Marriage and the tax breaks that come with it happen to be the human/American form of supporting reproduction, which is a survival issue. I realize these are all complex conceptions for the liberal movement to comprehend, as they're bigoted against all things traditional, and instead support chaos and idiocracy. They want you to believe that mankind more closely resembles a seahorse instead of a common mammal.


The liberal movement suggests this is a human rights issue, but they're dead wrong. Nobody is suggesting a gay person cannot marry someone of the opposite sex, and therefore they are not descriminated. If they choose not to do this that's their business. In life we have to meet minimum requirements to enjoy certain privlidges. We don't allow 5-year olds to acquire driver's licenses, and they're not allowed to purchase alcohol. If this truly was a human rights issue, then there's no reason to restrict marriage at all. Relatives should be allowed to marry, children should be allowed to marry, and eventually, adults should be allowed to marry children. This may come as a shock, but incest and pedophilia are "normal" where their argument is concerned, and the participants happen to be human (see human rights). And after all, it's legal for adults to marry children in some countries, and incest has been around for thousands of years.


The easily swayed might convince themselves of the gay-marriage non-sense, because they're trendy, but I'll continue to call things as they are, and I'm calling same-sex marriage a deception, hoax and fad.

[brituc1]

I don't think people marry one another for breeding purposes, I've been told its an issue of love. Is the liberal movement any more bigoted to all things traditional as the conservatives are bigoted to the untraditional? Of course nobody's gonna let a 5-year old drink and/or drive. Their not physically and emotionally mature enough which is also the reason why comparing pedophilia to homosexuality is ridiculous. Incest is wrong because genetics says so. Nobody wants a three-headed baby. If two consenting, unrelated adults want to share their lives together, then who cares? Who is it really hurting? The only drawback to any gay relationship would be reproduction except that thankfully there are these things called adoption agencies that exist because plenty of single parents out there don't want the kids they bore by traditional means. Should the impossible happen and everyone on earth turn gay, I'm sure any in vitrio clinic will be happy to help keep the human race alive.

[Geminize]

Wow ISpeak, that's quite an opinion piece. First I feel a need to point out that marriage is completely unnecessary for reproduction. I believe the tradition of marriage developed for the sake of establishing alliances; between families, tribes, city-states, etc. It was a practical means of self-defense. Modern laws and tax codes have been created to support reproduction through marriage.

One of the awesome and terrifying benefits of being human is that we get to consciously decide, as a society, how to define what is right and wrong. Fortunately, our definitions and choices evolve over time. We are constantly refining our social fabric as we stumble through time. There will be mistakes and setbacks, but overall the effect has been a general improvement in human rights, dignity, equality. Lofty ideals worth striving for.

Traditions serve to illuminate our past. They can give us valuable tools for understanding the context of our lives, and should not be discarded lightly. However, those same traditions can become shackles, obstructing our natural development. Many traditions have been left behind when they no longer serve society's needs.

Linking same-sex marriage with incest and pedophilia is a weak-minded fallacy. Changing the definition of marriage in no way means that anyone, of any age or relation, will eventually be allowed to marry. Marriage will continue to be a means of supporting reproduction, AND a means of honoring the commitment between two adults, male/female or otherwise.

I live in Washington State, where we just voted to legalize same-sex marriage (and recreational marijuana, but that's another topic). This is no fad, this is no nonsense, this is a GROUNDSWELL which is just beginning to pick up speed.

[Bowyn Aerrow]

Correct, marriage is just a fad.

And we need to replace it with something a bit more realistic such as a procreation license that comes with stiff tests and a degree or two for raising children.

No scratch that, no children should be born for the next 20 years, and any and all pregnancies that do happen in that period of time is terminated and so two are the law-breaking people. AFTER 20 years, then the 20-28 year old may petition and contract the government for procreation rights, allowed one (1) child per adult. After the woman pops out two children she gets a complete hysterectomy and the man has his balls cut off.

Marriage should be abolished. It is an unrealistic institution that affords special rights to married couples over singles, such as tax breaks and special rights to where a spouse can have some say in the other's life. No one needs that crap.

Marriage is a silly, stupid useless fad and no one should have it.

[Pix]

Troll. I didn't finish reading.

[Genersis]

I'm surprised such arguments ever took off in social conservative circles.

We don't limit marriage to only those willing to have children, nor to even those who can reproduce.

Same-sex couples may not be able to reproduce, but some do wish to raise children; even if all same-sex couples did not want to raise children, I don't think they're numbers would surpass opposite sex couples who don't want/can't have kids by much.

Yes, we can all marry people of the opposite-sex, but it can not work out as our brains aren't wired to love someone of the opposite sex as a life partner.

The argument originates from the inter-racial marriage era, "you can marry someone of the same colour, so you aren't being discriminated against." Are you sure you want to use that failed argument?
In fact, it's an even worse argument against Same-sex marriage because some homosexuals lack the capacity to romantically love the opposite sex altogether.
Good luck getting that nonsense to stick.

Marrying children seemingly always gets brought up in these "debates".
It's a slippery slope argument.
A fallacy.
Only said by the ignorant of those wanting to mislead.
Please, even if true, we didn't start the slippery slope, it was women's suffrage over 100 years ago. Or if you want to stick to the issue of marriage specifically, the inter-racial marriage movement. Go whine to them that they don't diverse their rights because the next group to advocate for rights might not deserve them.
If you really think the argument for same-sex marriage is the same for adult-child marriage, you are shockingly ignorant.

[Lilitu]

I think there's a definite distinction between procreation and parenthood.

Procreation can happen without marriage and is a predominantly biological matter, this cannot happen between two gay people.

Parenthood however must be separated from procreation; we cannot definitively find the best way to raise a child so we cannot say that parenthood is exclusively a heterosexual role. Nevertheless, parenthood and not procreation is the foundation of the traditional sense of marriage, in my opinion. And as I have mentioned before, I believe that regardless of biological gender, as long as a balance between a male and female parent model exists, a child can be raised well and normally in western culture.

Biology and sociology have to be separated when we consider the issue of same sex marriage.

[monk]

Would this help?

[bryandurel]

if it's any concession, i make terrific sandwiches.

[Blue]

Bowyn is right - then this couldn't happen. :tongue: