TeenHelp

TeenHelp (http://www.teenhelp.org/forums/)
-   Current Events and Debates (http://www.teenhelp.org/forums/f38-current-events-debates/)
-   -   HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth? (http://www.teenhelp.org/forums/f38-current-events-debates/t19946-homosexuality-scourge-earth/)

Smitten July 14th 2009 03:19 PM

HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
Now, I have no problem with homosexuality except for the fact that it makes a lot of women unavailable to me. But the amount of homosexual men means that alot of competition out of the game, so I think it balances out. :rolleyes:
What this thread is about is my wondering what everyone views on the topic of homosexuality and homosexual marriage, mainly focusing on marriage.
I think that marriage is something that should be reserved for heterosexual couples, no exceptions.
I have no problem with homosexuals having all the benefits of a marriage but the title of marriage should be reserved for a man and woman. If homosexuals want the same rights and etc, they need to get their own name for the union. :p marriage is taken!


Prozac July 14th 2009 03:28 PM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
Yes, and they should have all the same rights.

I do not see what the difference is whether it is a heterosexual or a homosexual couple.
It is simply two people declaring their love for each other and making it 'official'.
Why should someone face discrimination and get less rights just because they prefer people of their own gender?
Love is love, in my opinion.

Jack July 14th 2009 03:29 PM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
Why should marriage be reserved for a man and a woman? I can't really see a reason? And why does the semantics of it bother you so much? :p

Edit: Moved to Debates

Skeleton July 14th 2009 03:34 PM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
It should be called marriage and they should have the same rights, no matter what the gender of the people in the relationship is because at the end of the day, the feelings and commitment etc are still the same, so why must the labels and rights be different?

Smitten July 14th 2009 03:48 PM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephanie (Post 186563)
Yes, and they should have all the same rights.
Why should someone face discrimination and get less rights just because they prefer people of their own gender?

Er... I said I have NO problem with them having the same rights. Where did discrimination and less rights come from? o.O

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack (Post 186564)
Why should marriage be reserved for a man and a woman? I can't really see a reason? And why does the semantics of it bother you so much? :p

Because of the ability to procreate naturally. I believe that marriage should be reserved for those capable of procreating the way nature intended. I also don't think that couples who do not intend on having children should get married. I see marriage above all else as a commitment to have children.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlie (Post 186565)
It should be called marriage and they should have the same rights, no matter what the gender of the people in the relationship is because at the end of the day, the feelings and commitment etc are still the same, so why must the labels and rights be different?

Thats just what I believe.

Jack July 14th 2009 03:51 PM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Smitten (Post 186568)
Because of the ability to procreate naturally. I believe that marriage should be reserved for those capable of procreating the way nature intended. I also don't think that couples who do not intend on having children should get married. I see marriage above all else as a commitment to have children.

So barren women should be forbidden to get married as well? What about straight couples who get married and later decide to not have children? Should they be forcibly divorced? What about unnatural procreation? Certain gay couples can do that, should they be allowed to get married?

Marriage is about so much more than children...

Prozac July 14th 2009 03:52 PM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Smitten (Post 186568)
Er... I said I have NO problem with them having the same rights. Where did discrimination and less rights come from? o.O

I was actually just questioning it in general, my post wasn't particularly directed towards your beliefs, it was about my beliefs.
Saying that, not being allowed to marry (because they are homosexual = discrimination) = one less right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smitten (Post 186568)
Because of the ability to procreate naturally. I believe that marriage should be reserved for those capable of procreating the way nature intended. I also don't think that couples who do not intend on having children should get married. I see marriage above all else as a commitment to have children.

What if a women finds out that she is infertile after she has got married? Does that mean that she should be divorced?
What if a woman had been infertile since birth?

BigBL87 July 14th 2009 03:59 PM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack (Post 186564)
Why should marriage be reserved for a man and a woman? I can't really see a reason? And why does the semantics of it bother you so much? :p

I'm kind of in the middle ground on the subject. I would prefer not to have it be referred to as marriage, but I also think that with church and state being separate, my beliefs don't necessarily have the right to be legislated. As such, I didn't cast a vote.

The main reason I kind of take issue with the semantics is that LONG, LONG before marriage was a legal union, it was a religious institution. It's something of the church's that the government has stuck it's nose in on, and now is regulating.

Jack July 14th 2009 04:10 PM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
Bruce, marriage pre-dates Christianity so it cannot be a Christian institution. It's more a social insitution than a religious one. It has also evolved seperately in several different religions so even if it was classed as a religious industry there is no saying which religion would hold a claim to it, if this was not regulated there would be huge discrepancies in who could get married and who could not between religions.

I think your middle ground stance is great though, I wish more people thought like that.

BigBL87 July 14th 2009 04:37 PM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack (Post 186581)
Bruce, marriage pre-dates Christianity so it cannot be a Christian institution. It's more a social insitution than a religious one. It has also evolved seperately in several different religions so even if it was classed as a religious industry there is no saying which religion would hold a claim to it, if this was not regulated there would be huge discrepancies in who could get married and who could not between religions.

I think your middle ground stance is great though, I wish more people thought like that.

Right, which is why I said it was a religious institution ;). Didn't say anything about Christian. However, the "step" before it became government regulated was probably when it was regulated by the church. I understand where you are coming from in calling it a social institution, but I would disagree because I imagine that especially in ancient times, it always involved a religious ceremony.

Jack July 14th 2009 05:19 PM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBL87 (Post 186599)
Right, which is why I said it was a religious institution ;). Didn't say anything about Christian. However, the "step" before it became government regulated was probably when it was regulated by the church. I understand where you are coming from in calling it a social institution, but I would disagree because I imagine that especially in ancient times, it always involved a religious ceremony.

Ah I just figured you meant it was Christian as you were annoyed the government regulated it and America is a predominantly Christian country. My bad.

Well, I think you need to look at the importance of the religious ceremony. For example there may have been a ceremony but that was mainly secoundary to the marriage itself (eg asking the gods to smile on the union by offering something to them). I guess it depends where you put the focus. Some ancient marriages didn't involve a religious ceremony such as Comanche, ancient Greek and Eygyptian (some of the first recorded marriages) cultures, in these cultures marriage was a social institution. There were quite a few ancient cultures which did not have religion as an integral part to marriage.

Mel July 14th 2009 05:21 PM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
People usually get married because they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. In my opinion, that is exactly who marriage and the term 'married' should be reserved for, too. Love has absolutely nothing to do with gender, nor is gender the reason people get married. So.. why should two people who love each other not have the same rights as all the other people?

I honestly think that telling people they can't get married or can't use the term 'married' to describe their union simply because of the gender of their partner is discrimination. Why should people have to get their own word? In the end, they're still doing the same thing. They're being with someone they love and want to spend the rest of their life with.

BigBL87 July 14th 2009 05:24 PM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mel (Post 186624)
People usually get married because they love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. In my opinion, that is exactly who marriage and the term 'married' should be reserved for, too. Love has absolutely nothing to do with gender, nor is gender the reason people get married. So.. why should two people who love each other not have the same rights as all the other people?

Well, if love is the main reason, why shouldn't more than 2 people be allowed to marry? Love isn't limited to only one other person, after all.

Union Of V July 14th 2009 06:31 PM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Smitten (Post 186568)
Because of the ability to procreate naturally. I believe that marriage should be reserved for those capable of procreating the way nature intended. I also don't think that couples who do not intend on having children should get married. I see marriage above all else as a commitment to have children.

So you believe that if someone is sterile, they shouldn't be allowed to get married? Also you believe people in an abusive relationship should stay together just to have a child, only to get divorced once the child is born?

Algernon July 14th 2009 06:43 PM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
I think if you get married in a church, you should call it a marriage. If you get married at state, a union.

Smitten July 14th 2009 07:36 PM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
I knew people were going to go into infertility.
Naturally, without any abnormal mutations or diseases or physical deformations. A man and woman can reproduce. Therefore even if they are infertile it would in an Ideal situation be possible in nature if they were not infertile. So they are entitled to marry ofcoarse. Being infertile is not their fault. And people who have no wish for children, no. I do not think they should get married either. rather be in a union aswell.

Marvin July 14th 2009 07:41 PM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
http://forums.teenhelp.org/f38-curre...-gay-marriage/

most this discussion can be found in this thread...

Jack July 14th 2009 07:45 PM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Smitten (Post 186741)
I knew people were going to go into infertility.
Naturally, without any abnormal mutations or diseases or physical deformations. A man and woman can reproduce.Therefore even if they are infertile it would in an Ideal situation be possible in nature if they were not infertile.

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at because that doesn't really make sense.

Quote:

So they are entitled to marry ofcoarse. Being infertile is not their fault.
Being gay is not anyone's fault either. Plus, lesbians can reproduce albeit in an unnatural manner, therefore should they be allowed to get married? If marriage is just about children as you say then yes they should.

Quote:

And people who have no wish for children, no. I do not think they should get married either. rather be in a union aswell.
I hate to repeat myself but, how about people who want children and then change their minds after they marry? And what about couples who become infertile after the marriage due to disease or accident? Should they be forcibly divorced?

Also if marriage is just about children should people with possible hereditary disease be forbidden from marriage?

Also from a practical perspective how would you regulate that? "You must have children within an X amount of years after marriage"? That would throw up huuuuuge legal issues such as a woman's right to control her body.

Prozac July 14th 2009 07:54 PM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Smitten (Post 186741)
I knew people were going to go into infertility.
Naturally, without any abnormal mutations or diseases or physical deformations. A man and woman can reproduce. Therefore even if they are infertile it would in an Ideal situation be possible in nature if they were not infertile. So they are entitled to marry ofcoarse. Being infertile is not their fault. And people who have no wish for children, no. I do not think they should get married either. rather be in a union aswell.

Naturally, some people are born infertile. Nature is not always what you're interpreting as 'ideal'...
And, as Jack has already stated, people do not necessarily choose their sexuality/who they fall in love with.

Also, I would like to ask whether you think it is acceptable for a forced/unhappy/abusive heterosexual couple to marry and have children (in a bad environment) and for happy, caring, supportive homosexual couple (who could adopt and support their children in a good environment) not marry?

Union Of V July 14th 2009 09:18 PM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Smitten (Post 186741)
I knew people were going to go into infertility.
Naturally, without any abnormal mutations or diseases or physical deformations. A man and woman can reproduce. Therefore even if they are infertile it would in an Ideal situation be possible in nature if they were not infertile. So they are entitled to marry ofcoarse. Being infertile is not their fault. And people who have no wish for children, no. I do not think they should get married either. rather be in a union aswell.

Funny - so it's OK because there's a miniscule chance that they might not actually be infertile? Wow I must be in line for an ASBO then! :rolleyes:

Double X July 14th 2009 10:53 PM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
Marriage is not a religious institution. There should be no restriction whatsoever on same-sex marriage. I like the turnout on the poll.

I would rather have the government only grant unions with financial benefits, and churches/temples can perform holy marriages, that don't have any legal importance. And then unionized people can consider themselves married if they want, no one is really stopping them.

InSovietRussiaORGASMGotU July 14th 2009 10:55 PM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Smitten (Post 186741)
I knew people were going to go into infertility.
Naturally, without any abnormal mutations or diseases or physical deformations. A man and woman can reproduce. Therefore even if they are infertile it would in an Ideal situation be possible in nature if they were not infertile. So they are entitled to marry ofcoarse. Being infertile is not their fault. And people who have no wish for children, no. I do not think they should get married either. rather be in a union aswell.

What if two homosexual women wanted to get married and have a child so they went to a sperm bank and then reproduced in that way.

Also, what if two people married wanting children and while married, still without children, the two of them then decided they don't want children after all. Should they then get automatically divorced even if they still love each other?

I'm not sure what you're trailing at when you say in an ideal situation. Nature will not always perform in an ideal way, in fact most of the time it won't, so I see no relevance for saying something in an ideal way.

But I have another question, since you're setting the conditions for marriage, shouldn't another be the quality and quantity of care that the couple can give their children? If two people are to get married (heterosexual), and let's say they're drug-users or alcoholics or abusive couples, then that's not great for their children. If a homosexual couple also wanted children (assume they could get sperm from the sperm bank), and they would be excellent parents, would you still say the heterosexuals have the right?

And one more question: what if one member of the couple had both genders and their partner had only one. The one with both genders doesn't fit neatly into the cookie-cutter mold of man (XY) or woman (XX). If they wanted children, then would you say they have a right to marriage or not?

My view on it is fairly simple. Two humans of any gender and any orientation can get married. So if someone denies a group of humans this right, then it makes that group seem as though they're a lesser kind of a human or perhaps they're not a human at all. Marriage is not about having children, it's about showing your love for your partner to such an extent that you wish to have a confirmed bond to hopefully spend the rest of your life with or most of it with. Whether children result or not shouldn't matter nor should their intention to procreate. If people need to procreate, then they can easily and have no need to be married.

Mel July 15th 2009 04:19 AM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBL87 (Post 186626)
Well, if love is the main reason, why shouldn't more than 2 people be allowed to marry? Love isn't limited to only one other person, after all.

I didn't make the rule that people couldn't, and I'm not saying I'm against it either. I'm just saying that if 2 people want to get married, they shouldn't have restrictions forced upon them simply because they're not heterosexual.

Heretic July 15th 2009 04:32 AM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
Why shouldn't they call it marriage? Marriage is meant as a union of love in the modern Western definition, so there's no reason to call it anything else.

Oiseau the Little Bird! July 15th 2009 04:17 PM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
"Sandra...Will you perform a Civil Union with me?"

Not as romantic as "marry," imo.

Marvin July 15th 2009 04:42 PM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Smitten (Post 186741)
I knew people were going to go into infertility.
Naturally, without any abnormal mutations or diseases or physical deformations. A man and woman can reproduce. Therefore even if they are infertile it would in an Ideal situation be possible in nature if they were not infertile. So they are entitled to marry ofcoarse. Being infertile is not their fault. And people who have no wish for children, no. I do not think they should get married either. rather be in a union aswell.

Excuse me? So being gay is their fault? Um... NO. And actually, some people have operations to make themselves infertile. Some people live lifestyles that may lead to infertility (e.g. smoking), etc. So for some, it IS self induced and therefore their fault.

In an ideal situation they could have kids, but the fact is they can't. Yet there are plenty of ways for gays to have kids, and not only adoption.... but say straight people adopt, should they not be allowed to have kids? I mean if marriage is about reproduction? (though in our society, it really isnt). And what about gay couples raising kids? If marriage is for the kids, surely the gays should be able to get married too?

And seperate but equal reinforces division and prejudice. Just reading your first poll option 'they'... it makes in and out groups. Us vs them. 'They' are trying to steal something from 'us', make 'them' come up with their own name.

Also your argument is absurd. Marriage has never been uniquely about children, so the word marriage isnt reserved for that. So if you are claiming gays should have unions with the same rights, but a different name... why? Surely there's a better argument that the legal benefits of marriage are to aid in bringing up kids.... You are pointlessly defending some rigid, not greatly throught through position on pragmatics. Words are arbitary symbols that represent a meaning... they often change. Just look at the work gay. 100 years ago, gay did not mean homosexual.

Union Of V July 15th 2009 09:18 PM

Re: HoMoSeXuAlItY - The scourge of the earth?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Oiseau the Little Bird! (Post 187379)
"Sandra...Will you perform a Civil Union with me?"

Sounds like a bizarre sex position.... yeuch :bleh:


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:55 PM.

Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000-2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search engine optimization by vBSEO.
All material copyright 1998-2017, TeenHelp.
Terms | Legal | Privacy | Conduct | Complaints