| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Frits
11782 Posts
On November 05 2008 06:29 tika wrote: if homosexually is not considered a mental disease by law/medicine then homosexual couples should be permitted to raise children and marry Since when is a mental disease grounds on not letting someone marry? Being a mental issue or not changes nothing about the situation. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 05 2008 06:52 d_so wrote: if we make marriage a nonreligious institution, an amendment will have to be passed that separates religion from marriage. this will occur either by stripping the power of churches to oversee marriages or to create a new form of marriage that does not require a religious oversight. now, the latter already exists. but if you're going to completely strip the right of churches to oversee marriage, then what you're doing is attacking that church's ability to worship, since lifestyle practices fall within a church's freedom of religion. thus, any amendment stripping a church of its rights to conduct marriages is unconstitutional. so that is why it's difficult to remove the religious aspect of it. as for the legal aspect of it, as many have said before, marriage has had a long history of granting special legal rights. wat religion has had a hand in marriage, but you can already have civic weddings. | ||
|
d_so
Korea (South)3262 Posts
On November 05 2008 06:59 oneofthem wrote: wat religion has had a hand in marriage, but you can already have civic weddings. that's why i said "the latter already exists." Latter referring to civil weddings/unions nm. i should put an "and" with the "or" when i said "this will occur either by stripping the power of churches to oversee marriages or to create a new form of marriage that does not require a religious oversight." | ||
|
zobz
Canada2175 Posts
I agree with you that the law has no business in forcing certain people and institutions to involve themselves with the process of marrying certain individuals, whether with or without prejudice. Churches provide a public service, but they don't just simply marry people, they marry them under god, and that is a service that the religious authorities at the church should have the right to bestow on people discriminately according to their religion. But marriage is just something that people do if they want, secularly or according to any religious view. It's something that people have the freedom to do, just as it is something that people have the freedom to not assist them in doing. Gay people naturally want to marry according to their sexual preference. They should have the freedom to marry each other just as a man and a woman would when they are in love. It's just a matter of a small institutional change to legally aknowledge their individual choice in the matter of which sex they love and marry, to say that whether it's between a man and a man or a woman and a woman, it's between two willing individuals and is the same in every other way. To deny gay people the freedom to marry, and to choose their spouse in a way appropriate to their romantic and sexual interests as individuals, is to deny them the right to be free in a way hetersexuals are. To justify this on a secular level so that it can be applied to all society generally, not just those who choose to be part of a particular religion, one needs a much stronger reason than "marriage is between a man and a woman, that's just what it is." That's the way it has been, but what is the reason why it shouldn't change? | ||
|
Nytefish
United Kingdom4282 Posts
The church should be able to choose to whether they want to appoint gay priests/ marry gay couples/ allow non-christians to have a christian wedding, etc. I don't see a problem with that. For example, my non-christian parents were allowed to get married in a church, by a priest. | ||
|
NrG.Bamboo
United States2756 Posts
On November 05 2008 06:58 Frits wrote: Since when is a mental disease grounds on not letting someone marry? Being a mental issue or not changes nothing about the situation. Yeah, I was kind of wondering what tika meant by this. Of course this also brings me to ask: in what way should someone be concidered unfit to marry or raise children due to mental illness? What sort of disorders put someone over the line which is good or bad for raising a family, and living happily ever after. If all emotional/mental disorders would impair someone from being able to marry, then I wouldn't be allowed, nor would my mother. | ||
micronesia
United States24678 Posts
On November 05 2008 07:03 Valentine wrote: Yeah, I was kind of wondering what tika meant by this. Of course this also brings me to ask: in what way should someone be concidered unfit to marry or raise children due to mental illness? What sort of disorders put someone over the line which is good or bad for raising a family, and living happily ever after. If all emotional/mental disorders would impair someone from being able to marry, then I wouldn't be allowed, nor would my mother. I think it's just a matter of whether or not you are considered able to provide the necessary life for the children. This applies both to people with disabilities, and just idiots in general. | ||
|
anch
United States5457 Posts
If every lunatic keep forming a union and protest their believes and fundamental rights, whats next? marrying manikins or cars? I would vote Yes on Prop 8, but I think No is what majority will vote. People wouldn't be voting No, if they find out their son is gay. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24678 Posts
On November 05 2008 08:35 anch wrote: I think this is just obscured, denying racial marriage is okay, but same sex marriage? If every lunatic keep forming a union and protest their believes and fundamental rights, whats next? marrying manikins or cars? I would vote Yes on Prop 8, but I think No is what majority will vote. People wouldn't be voting No, if they find out their son is gay. I can't tell if you are serious or not... | ||
|
Savio
United States1850 Posts
So the question is, should government subsidize gay marriage? I would argue no. And I am sure that most Americans agree with that. Children are best off with a mother and father. I have no doubt about that. And that helps society so much that the tax/legal benefits of marriage make a lot of sense. | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
On November 05 2008 08:35 anch wrote: I think this is just obscured, denying racial marriage is okay, but same sex marriage? If every lunatic keep forming a union and protest their believes and fundamental rights, whats next? marrying manikins or cars? I would vote Yes on Prop 8, but I think No is what majority will vote. People wouldn't be voting No, if they find out their son is gay. Because if your son was gay you'd want him to NOT marry? I literally don't understand a word you're saying. | ||
|
NrG.Bamboo
United States2756 Posts
On November 05 2008 08:35 anch wrote: I think this is just obscured, denying racial marriage is okay, but same sex marriage? If every lunatic keep forming a union and protest their believes and fundamental rights, whats next? marrying manikins or cars? I would vote Yes on Prop 8, but I think No is what majority will vote. People wouldn't be voting No, if they find out their son is gay. I KNOW DUDE WTF IS NEXT MAN WOMEN VOTING? | ||
|
d_so
Korea (South)3262 Posts
i gotta say by FAR teamliquid has the most intelligent posters. | ||
|
Dark.Carnival
United States5095 Posts
On November 05 2008 08:35 anch wrote: I think this is just obscured, denying racial marriage is okay, but same sex marriage? If every lunatic keep forming a union and protest their believes and fundamental rights, whats next? marrying manikins or cars? I would vote Yes on Prop 8, but I think No is what majority will vote. People wouldn't be voting No, if they find out their son is gay. wow, i really hope you're not serious ;x | ||
|
Raz0r
United States287 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24678 Posts
On November 05 2008 09:03 d_so wrote: ya know, i posted this OP in three separate places: here, on my facebook and on a basketball site. i gotta say by FAR teamliquid has the most intelligent posters. That is not surprising. However it's also not surprising that many of the posters (even on tl) didn't read the OP fully lol Raz0r why do you believe kids need man/woman? Also, why do you link marriage with kids? | ||
|
Frits
11782 Posts
On November 05 2008 09:26 Raz0r wrote: I am for Prop 8 I'm not against gays or anything, but I simply do not agree with gay marriage, I agree that a marriage is meant for a man and a woman, the psychological needs of both man and woman to take care of their kids, I believe is a necessity. What you believe however is not scientifically proven so you're basing it on what you think. Pretty weak if that's your argument for limiting the freedom of others. And even then gays being allowed to marry doesn't interfere with men and women raising their kids so I'm not sure what your argument is here. You make a case for marriage being good for raising kids, you don't make any argument however that gives a reason to not allow gays to marry as well. Gays being allowed to marry doesn't take anything away from heterosexual marriages. Actually, using your argument, only heterosexual people who plan on having kids are allowed to marry, seeing as your definition of being able to marry is based entirely on that. Also about your psychological need, kids need a figure in their youths that provides 'warmth' in their upbringing, there is nothing that indicates that this 'warmth' has to come from the mother. If anything certain groups of heterosexual couples are more likely to provide a bad environment for their kids because in these relationships pregnancy can be accidental and not thought out well. You're saying that you're not against homosexuality, but you ARE for limiting their freedom compared to hetero's. That is still a form of discrimination and should not be as easily justified on the notion that 'it's natural' or bullshit like that. | ||
|
Sadist
United States7228 Posts
Why not ban atheists or agnostics or Muslims from getting married too? | ||
|
d_so
Korea (South)3262 Posts
On November 05 2008 10:34 Sadist wrote: my thing is if you call marriage a religious ceremony or whatever, or even largely religious. Why not ban atheists or agnostics or Muslims from getting married too? cuz they're religious too. christianity doesn't have a monopoly on religion | ||
|
Meta
United States6225 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV European League
PiGosaur Monday
OSC
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
The PondCast
Online Event
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
Online Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
