Gay Marriages. Should They Be Abolished?!

[jukka7]

hahaha by the way sassy is that Jerry YAn? yuor avatar i mean?

[boneyboy0]

ooh, he`s a 'hoodie' I'm scared, tony blair woould love him

[SassybutSweet]

hahaha by the way sassy is that Jerry YAn? yuor avatar i mean?

No. It's Jay Chou! He's my fav chinese singer. He is also the sexiest man alive!! Besides Jet Li, and Denzel Washington!!

boneyboyO you got a scary looking advatar there buddy!! I'll never look at typing the same again!! Who is Blair?!

[puiwaihin]

Why ban gay marriages?

The reason cannot be the Bible. Separation of church and state. It is not acceptable to push one's own morals on another.

But then, why ALLOW gay marriages? What is marriage, in terms of society and law?

Marriage is a legal status. It gives certain rights and priveleges to those who are married. What is the benefit to society? It increases the stability of the family unit. Stable families have a much better tendancy to produce people who are better adjusted to contribute to society.

Would gay marriages in general do the same? If not, then society should not grant it the same privilege as traditional marriage.

[boneyboy0]

you started off well, then let me down with the why allow bit, of course they should be allowed, gays deserve the same legal rights as the rest of us, they are not less deserving because they have different sexual tendancies to others.

sassy is not gonna like this topic starting up again

just remember that it wasn't me

[jukka7]

dont know what to say bout this, but Pauiwain started ,where i left off, and his doing a better job. so ill let the two of you on this topic, if i think there something i can say, ill join you two

[boneyboy0]

it will be a slow conversation then, Pwh doesnt log in that often, too busy

[jukka7]

hahaha so your like stuck with us right sassy

[boneyboy0]

yeah, but at least I get to chat everyday

[puiwaihin]

you started off well, then let me down with the why allow bit, of course they should be allowed, gays deserve the same legal rights as the rest of us, they are not less deserving because they have different sexual tendancies to others.

sassy is not gonna like this topic starting up again

just remember that it wasn't me

Ah, but then is marriage a legal right, or a privilege? Isn't it unfair to single people to give some people advantages simply because they have found their "one" while someone else didn't?

Homosexuals deserve the same basic protections and guarantees as any other citizen. But you don't issue a driver's license or a gun permit to just anyone. Nor do you give people funding, tax cuts, diplomatic immunity, or a handicap parking sticker unless they meet special criteria.

Marriage in a legal sense is meant as an incentive to keep families together and protect socciety. It comes with both responsibilities, and perks. In the US there are a number of tax breaks families get that single people do not.

The way I see it, there are two arguments you can make:
1: homosexual unions offer just as much benefit to society in terms of fostering social stability and healthy future members of society, thus, the privileges of marriage should be offered to them as well.
2: marriage, in terms of the law, is not a privilege, but an absolute right. Anyone should be able to marry anyone or anything they like and the government has no choice but to recognize it and treat it as such

I don't agree with either of those reasons.

Homosexuals enjoy the exact same rights as everyone else. They are free to marry someone with whom they can have children and raise a family, enjoying all the protections and privileges that come with such behavior which adds stability to society. And Heterosexuals can't get those priveleges with members of the same sex.

The only difference is what the two groups want. One wants what society doesn't offer a privilege for, while the other wants what society will reward them for. They are still treated equally.

[boneyboy0]

The only difference is what the two groups want. One wants what society doesn't offer a privilege for, while the other wants what society will reward them for. They are still treated equally.

i beg to differ, gays living together as a couple for years should share the same rights as a hetro couple, legal rights in the event of one partner dying, they do not at the moment, allowing them to marry rectifies this problem, giving them the same legal rights as anyone else

the whole thing about gay couples adopting babies is not the issue, we should start a topic for that one, I am not 'for' that, I think it presents too many problems for the child involved. but thats another topic.

[puiwaihin]

i beg to differ, gays living together as a couple for years should share the same rights as a hetro couple, legal rights in the event of one partner dying,

Why? What benefit is it to society?

There is a reason marriage is a legal institution supported by government and protected by law. That reason is a selfish reason. It is to promote stability in society and nurture productive citizens.

Society is an unspoken agreement to live and interact according to certain rules for the benefit of all people.We, in part, give up aboslute freedom and submit to laws and authority. In order to maximize the benefits to all members of society, some people who have important functions are given certain advantages. Behavior which leads to (or is believed to lead to) an improved society and standard of living for society members is rewarded, that which detracts from society is discouraged.

Legal recognition of marriage is one of these rewards intended to encourage a specific behavior. Strong families tend to produce less problems for society than broken homes, single-parent families, etc. So, the institution of marriage promotes this beneficial affect on society.

But those benefits for society do not exist with homosexual couples. Why, then, should society offer them benefits?

There is no right in law that other people have to treat you the way you wish to be treated. Marriage is NOT a fundamental right in law.

Now, I am purposely ignoring morality. Morally speaking you would say all people should be treated as they wish to be, and as you would wish them to treat you. So, if we are going beyond law and necessity, and want to mandate that the will of the people demand this equal treatment by common consent, you have to think: is there common consent?

The answer is a resounding no. Morally speaking, a large percentage of the populace opposes homosexuality. The law protects the rights of individuals to practice homosexuality without molestation, and rightly so. It is an individual choice (though a person's desires may not be a choice at all). But that does not extend to mutually consenting to support the practice through a social institution.

There is nothing that prevents a homosexual couple from solemnizing their vows of dedication. Nothing to prevent them from including each other in their wills. Nothing to deter them from living their lives together in the manner of their own choosing. The only thing that isn't there is recognition of this as a unit of society within the law.

Marriage is not a right. It is an extension of the needs of society.
A person's right to self-determination is guaranteed under law, but how others will treat you is not.

Until a strong majority of people believe homosexuality is morally correct, marriage should not be extended to include homosexual unions. It would not be fair to the majority to impose that on them.

[jukka7]

wow, i think ill learn more just by reading so no comment for me

[SassybutSweet]

I agree with admin. I don't think that homosexual marriages should be recognized by the law. Family, households should consist of a mom, a dad, and children. This kind of family unit dose add to the welfare of society. It makes to healthier. Too bad not many people see it that way. Because gay marriages have become legal in some states of the U.S. And all they have to do is cross a certsain border and they can be married. There should not be any states that, go ahead and bend the rules. Gay marriages do not make a healthy family unit.

I disagree with admin when he said that morallity, will say that you accept people for who they are. Wrong! Morallity will state that gay marriages, are immoral and should be banned. So if you get people who say that you should allow them to be married, and treat everyone as equal. They are not stating morals, they are just stating an opinion. Gay acceptants has nothing to do with morals.

[boneyboy0]

why not? what benefit can society gain from the opression of gays? it will not make gays less gay or less likely to want to marry the one they love.

it is not gay couples that are wreaking havoc in our society, that accolade must go to the criminals and the drug users who day in day out live by their own rules, not ours. not societies.

how exactly would a gay marriage detract from society? what would be the ill-effect to society? by promoting a society where any individual can feel accepted and part of that society would be more beneficial than one where you are accepted as long as you do not wish to marry someone of the same sex.

marriage in no way promotes less broken homes or single parent families, they will keep happening regardless, divorce will keep occuring too. a gay marriage is less likely to end with a single parent family, nature has seen to that

if the majority do not see that gays have rights then shouldn't we as idividuals change the majorities point of view?

perhaps the bill of rights should have had a little piece at the end of each line that read " unless you are gay and want to marry"