Aileron Posted April 13, 2004 Report Posted April 13, 2004 OMG, I'm agreeing with Bacchus before Dav. WTH is going on? He is correct, and that is the precise reason why this issue is still up in the air. If we had an incontrovertable reason for marriage, this issue would be easy to decide.
Dav Posted April 13, 2004 Report Posted April 13, 2004 i kinda mixed up my argumemnt there. Marrige is related to our monogomous nature, it is the way we seal the bond. Homosexuals can be monomogous as well so that gives them a right. The thing is marrage and children go together in most cases, whem people marry it is though of as the begging of their family and so the sycle continues. Homosexual couples cannot have kids with each other and so cant start a family together. It just depends on how you see thins and how marrage is valued, depending on how people value and define it they will have a view on it.
MonteZuma Posted April 14, 2004 Report Posted April 14, 2004 Humans are not totally monogomous. Biological evidence of this is in the size of human testicles, which are bigger than gorilla's testicles. I tend to believe that there is a 'science of marriage'. The different way human male and female bodies and brains function gives each sex complementary features. Men and women generally work well together in a healthy community. Having children was somewhat innevitable before contraception and important before superannuation and pensions to care for the elderly. Human offspring take a long time to become independent. A bond of some kind is necessary to make sure that the child can survive. The bond can involve a nuclear family or a community. Divorce has become more common in the last 30 years because the 'nuclear' bond is now less important. Government (ie community) provides support for single parents through welfare payments, etc. Marriage and related aspects can definitely be scientifically investigated.
Dav Posted April 14, 2004 Report Posted April 14, 2004 thats true, humans are not entirely monogomous. Its also atated that relationships remain intact mostly just long enough to hgave and raise a child. After that the hornmones ware off and the relationship comes apart.
Aileron Posted April 14, 2004 Report Posted April 14, 2004 That definition of marriage doesn't work. Sometimes people marry for money and political reasons.
Dav Posted April 15, 2004 Report Posted April 15, 2004 thay also marry to get people around the immigration issues. Thay are tring to stop this problem though.
Himura Kenshin Posted April 15, 2004 Report Posted April 15, 2004 But listen gay marrage can not work. None of us would be here if we were supposed to be gay. We are made to be heterosexuals if we werent ad ever one was gay the human race would have been extinct with 1 generation. I dont think we should hate hem but i still dont think they should be allowed to marry. You see it in naure everyware male/female i have never seen male/male or female/female couples in other species besides humans.
Bacchus Posted April 16, 2004 Report Posted April 16, 2004 plz read all the thread before posting. All those issues were adressed. Simply enough, allowing gay marriages will not stop humanity from getting laid and having babies... ~man, i can't begin to believe that some folks still think it would be an extinction event if gay were to be able to marry...~ simply put: YOU CAN'T HAVE A BABY SIMPLY BY BEING MARRIED! Dolphins are doing itChimps are doing itDog are doing itMen are doing itWomen are doing itEveryone is doing it you're not alone. ~sry, i feel cranky today~
Aileron Posted April 16, 2004 Report Posted April 16, 2004 Well, that does point out a relevent tactical inequity between gay marriage and hetero marriage. Whether or not we NEED those extra people or how much reproduction is affected by marriage is a matter of debate. BTW, while Chimps, Dolphins, and Dogs are having children without marriage, it is unlikely that human children can be raised in an equally stable environment without it, relative to the nuclear family with 2.5 children, a dog, and a white picket fence around their yard.
Dav Posted April 16, 2004 Report Posted April 16, 2004 marrage = more stable relationship = better environmet better environment = good for kids. just brings up that gays ont have kids so shouldnt marry. Thats not anti gay but focuses on the view that marrage = family.
Chikkaboom Posted April 16, 2004 Report Posted April 16, 2004 I know how ya feel.. I changed my underwear this morning after argueing with myself for 15 minutes whether I could let it slide another day HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Himura Kenshin Posted April 17, 2004 Report Posted April 17, 2004 sorry didnt fel like reading long -*BAD WORD*- posts so i just started here, Also i didnt mean gay marrige would make us extinct but im saying if we were supposed to be gay and stating from when we first came to earth (how ever you belive so) it would have been. It is also stated in the jewish, christian and muslim religion that God created to beeing Adam and eve
Bacchus Posted April 17, 2004 Report Posted April 17, 2004 he, no offense meant MC marrage = more stable relationship = better environmet ooh' date=' that's why so many marriage fails miserably! that explains all! seriously, there's so many divorces i doubt very much that marriage is synonymous of stability. Anyway, hwere in the 9 -*BAD WORD*-s can you decipher stability from marriage? You're refering to the ideal couple there...and believe me, the ideal couple is quite rare and isn't making the bunk of relationship. but, come to think of it we are agreeing with each other: Marriage = stable environment (untrue)stable = better environment (true)better environment = better for kids (true) [b']derivative understatement[/b]Gay can't marry, hence less stable/better environement, then bad for kids Let'S have them marry freely, would be better for the kids...and you have to agree. So in the end, you ARE pro gay-marriage. Aren't you? ps.: i meant that dolphins, dogs, chimps, etc...were having homosexual intercourse for the sheer pleasure of it. Not that they were having offsprings
Dav Posted April 17, 2004 Report Posted April 17, 2004 he, no offense meant MC marrage = more stable relationship = better environmet ooh' date=' that's why so many marriage fails miserably! that explains all! seriously, there's so many divorces i doubt very much that marriage is synonymous of stability. Anyway, hwere in the 9 -*BAD WORD*-s can you decipher stability from marriage? You're refering to the ideal couple there...and believe me, the ideal couple is quite rare and isn't making the bunk of relationship. but, come to think of it we are agreeing with each other: Marriage = stable environment (untrue)stable = better environment (true)better environment = better for kids (true) [b']derivative understatement[/b]Gay can't marry, hence less stable/better environement, then bad for kids Let'S have them marry freely, would be better for the kids...and you have to agree. So in the end, you ARE pro gay-marriage. Aren't you? ps.: i meant that dolphins, dogs, chimps, etc...were having homosexual intercourse for the sheer pleasure of it. Not that they were having offsprings i was about to add in general or in theory to tht comment, it doesnt always work but that is parly what marrage is supposed to achieve.
Aileron Posted April 19, 2004 Report Posted April 19, 2004 Anyway, hwere in the 9 -*BAD WORD*-s um....you play D&D too much Marriage, when done properly, is a more stable environment. Its just that nowadays its not done properly. Even dolphins and chimps have social structures, and dogs would most likely have them if they weren't domesticated (because wolves have social structures). Marriage has been around long enough that we can conclude that it is most likely the most stable human social structure.
Bacchus Posted April 19, 2004 Report Posted April 19, 2004 marriage suck. people were afraid to divorce, it wasn't permitted. It's just some cute way to control the smallest possible structure of social life. Women were poorly treated, marriage were organised and political (yes, even between peasantry)...in other words, it was an economical measure under he auspices of god. simply put, marriage is obsolete as a social block. Try it out of love i don't care, but try love first...marriage is useless to lovers. and ail, it's not D&D...it's Dante. Read something else then D&D (AD&D, Vampire, or anything gaming) regarding mythology. btw, my int is 21 so...keep off buddy or i'll smite ye with my eldritch fireball!
Dav Posted April 19, 2004 Report Posted April 19, 2004 marriage suck. people were afraid to divorce, it wasn't permitted. It's just some cute way to control the smallest possible structure of social life. Women were poorly treated, marriage were organised and political (yes, even between peasantry)...in other words, it was an economical measure under he auspices of god. simply put, marriage is obsolete as a social block. Try it out of love i don't care, but try love first...marriage is useless to lovers. and ail, it's not D&D...it's Dante. Read something else then D&D (AD&D, Vampire, or anything gaming) regarding mythology. btw, my int is 21 so...keep off buddy or i'll smite ye with my eldritch fireball!it is far from obsolete, all thats happend is it has changed a little and sociaty is more flexable on what happens within a marrage and ending it.
Bacchus Posted April 19, 2004 Report Posted April 19, 2004 I don't belive in it. Marry under god...cherish and all...yea, sure...i don't need no one to tell me that. And marrying for all life when your life expectancy is 35-40y...yea, sure...marrying for all your life when you'll live to be over 70...-*BAD WORD*- no. I'll place my personal happiness above the idea of "marriage". it sucks. Everybody might as well do whatever they want to be happy, it's just not my tea cup. And i'd rather not have marriage elevated to "important value". Marry if you want, where you want, anyhow you want...but it marriage shouldn't be used to judge other ways of life. It's not a pre-requisite of pedagogy or stability it's merely how 2 people chose to live their union.
Aileron Posted April 21, 2004 Report Posted April 21, 2004 Dante's Inferno has CIRCLES of -*BAD WORD*-, not seperate -*BAD WORD*-s. Besides, the book has hardly made enough impact to affect everyday speech. The common acronym used in online conversation is "WTH", not "WT9H". I'll pick on whoever I want in AD&D. All my (NWN Nights characters) stats are around 30, and my character is immune to pretty much everything, due to a custom module I made for myself. I'll get back to the subject. This debate is not whether marriage is used to judge other ways of life. It is about other ways of life being used to judge marriage. The current defignition of marriage is between a man and a woman. The debate is whether to change the defignition. Thus, the traditional view of marriage is on defense, which means that it is not on offense. If it is no on offense, then it is not attacking other lifestyles. This debate is about gay people forcing their lifestyle upon the traditional defignition of marriage.
Dav Posted April 30, 2004 Report Posted April 30, 2004 the thing is there are so many reason for and against it, the question is to the pros outweigh the cons and what is the impact on sociaty and that overall value of marrage should it be allowed?
Recommended Posts