Thread: Gay Marriage
View Single Post
Old 02-05-2009, 09:09 PM   #49
Dagobahn Eagle
@Dagobahn Eagle
First Strike Tester
Dagobahn Eagle's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Bergen, Norway
Posts: 3,513
Current Game: First Strike
Then you have no problem with calling it something other than marriage?
Only if you come up with new terms for these other kinds of nontraditional marriages:
  • Marriages decided upon by the couple getting married, not their parents, and made out of love, rather than for the family's economy, status and power*.
  • Inter-racial marriages.
  • Marriages in which the wife isn't basically the property of her husband.
  • Marriages open to teens and young adults**.

*Wiki: For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential. In fact at some times, too much affection in a marriage was considered a Sin. Historically, the perceived necessity of marriage has been a nearly universal source of stress.

**The average age of marriage in the late 1200s into the 1500s was around 25 years of age. Beginning in the 1500s it was unlawful for a woman younger than 20 years of age to marry.

I have no problem with a 18 year old boy forming a union out of Sinful love (God have mercy) with an 18 year old girl for then to respect her and treat her as his equal, and fine, you can make it a religious matter for whatever inane reason you may have, but please, don't disgust me by calling it marriage. What's wrong with a 'civil union'? Damnit, next they'll want to marry Negroes!

Some religions dictate as to when the consider a minor to be of age of consent, and if you start playing around with the definition of marriage to satisfy one group (where you can argue back and forth as to religion being in play there), you open the door for legal arguments for everything else.
We heard you the first ten times.

Marriage is partially [emphasis added] so you can have children, 2 men cannot have a child with each other, nor can 2 women have a child with each other, it takes both a man and a woman.
You said it - partially. Which is why sterile people and couples with serious genetic disorders can marry.

There's way too many children out there without loving parents. Allowing more couples to marry would mean more potential stable homes for these children to go to, and studies have found that children of two mothers perform just as well, or better, than children of one mom and one dad. They are also at a far lower risk of sexual abuse. I'll see about getting my references from Kavar's Corner.

That's easy, see the radical offshoots of the Mormon Faith, Islamic Faith where men apparently can have multiple wives.
But marriage has nothing to do with religion whatsoever, so the point is moot. If we were allowing gay marriage to please some sect with a positive view of gay marriage, maybe you'd have a point.

Actually it does, because guess where that kind of behavior gets instilled into children... (I'm blaming the school systems, not same-sex couples)
Oh, yes, the old "teh gheys are recruiting" sham.

Prove to me that teaching tolerance somehow induces homosexual lust in children. If you cannot, drop it.

Because it is trying to indoctrinate children into a particular lifestyle, which is an abusive use of their role as an authority figure.
I see Newspeak has entered the debate:
Heterosexuals have a sexual orientation, gays have a homosexual lifestyle.
Heterosexuals have campaigns to get marriage banned, gays have an agenda to get it legalized.

I could list several more examples than this.

Last edited by Dagobahn Eagle; 02-05-2009 at 09:31 PM.
Dagobahn Eagle is offline   you may: