Why does everyone dislike homosexuality so much?

[fated]

Or perhaps it is you who, if you can't "realize this, then you're prejudiced by something, or too dumb to understand, or still unable to comprehend."

That not all couples have children is evidence that it is not a requirement, particularly that couples who are known to be incapable of having children still are allowed to marry, means marriage is not about children. While I understand you believe that, it does not make it a requirement for marriage. Since having children is not a requirement for marriage, your claim that marriage is about children is false, leaving your argument without logic.

I never claimed it was requirement. I'm exerting that men and women are different.

Your logic is:
Here we have a group of sometimes couples that are easily distinguished from these never couples. Therefore the only thing we can do is add these never couples to the sometimes couples. That isn't true.

Do you understand?

I know what your position is. You are illogical to claim that the equality is logical.

This argument you've given to supposedly trump my logic, and it doesn't, isn't from logic, but jurisprudence. And I disagree with your jurisprudence. I think that makes marriage a system that I don't need to support. We should instead more the line the other way, just to people who have their own children. But, the point is that the current situation is logical, even if it is the most offensive feeling to you.

 

[Maren]

I never claimed it was requirement. I'm exerting that men and women are different.

Your logic is:
Here we have a group of sometimes couples that are easily distinguished from these never couples. Therefore the only thing we can do is add these never couples to the sometimes couples. That isn't true.

Do you understand?

I know what your position is. You are illogical to claim that the equality is logical.

This argument you've given to supposedly trump my logic, and it doesn't, isn't from logic, but jurisprudence. And I disagree with your jurisprudence. I think that makes marriage a system that I don't need to support. We should instead more the line the other way, just to people who have their own children. But, the point is that the current situation is logical, even if it is the most offensive feeling to you.

So you didn't say, "Marriage is about children, even if some people don't have them. Gay couples never have the biological children of both partners. That's it. That is a full logical argument."? Moving the goalposts when a key basis for your argument is destroyed is not logic. Sure sounds like you claimed that reproduction is the requirement to me.

 

[FlamingFemme]

Look, there is a logical argument here.

There may very well be, but you have not presented it.

If you don't realize this, then you're prejudiced by something, or too dumb to understand, or still unable to comprehend.

Saying that your arguments are illogical is not an attack on you. It would, however, make things a lot easier if you would just post your definition of marriage; what it entails, what should be included, and what should be excluded. Then, we can go from there.

If you do understand, and you propagate the belief that there is no logical argument, then you are propagating hate.

If someone is saying you don't have a logical argument, it's pretty safe to assume that they don't understand it. There is no conspiracy here.

People who disagree neither hate you or are necessarily discriminatory.

Here, we are in agreement.

You aren't clearing anything up by calling me an idiot, illogical, or claiming that my words are impenetrable.

No one has called you an idiot, at least that I've seen. Your argument IS illogical, which is the only reason it has been called such. And sometimes, your words ARE impenetrable. However, when one gets passionate, it's easy to type fast and have your words make sense to you, and then once you publish it, it doesn't necessarily make sense to everyone else. That happens to the best of us. However, when someone asks you for clarification, it is better to provide it than to whine about being 'attacked'.

Give me some more shaming and hate speech.

No comment.

Look, I have a wife and kids.

That's great. I'm sure you're very happy. Why would you want to interfere with others' happiness, though?

Marriage is about children, even if some people don't have them.

Um, no. If some married people don't have children (for whatever reason), then it logically follows that marriage is NOT 'about children'.

Gay couples never have the biological children of both partners.

Neither do step-families, adoptive families, widows, widowers, and other atypical family types. But they're legally allowed to be (re)married.

That's it. That is a full logical argument.

Yeah... Um... No. It's not.

This is your argument:
Here we have a group of sometimes couples that are easily distinguished from these never couples. Therefore the only thing we can do is add these never couples to the sometimes couples.

Yeah... Um... No. It's not. That is definitely not the argument.

That isn't true.

In your opinion.

Because you certainly haven't provided a sound, logical, reasonable argument.

However, I have heard many sound, logical, and reasonable arguments in favor of same-sex marriage recognition.

 

[LittleNipper]

Or perhaps it is you who, if you can't "realize this, then you're prejudiced by something, or too dumb to understand, or still unable to comprehend."

That not all couples have children is evidence that it is not a requirement, particularly that couples who are known to be incapable of having children still are allowed to marry, means marriage is not about children. While I understand you believe that, it does not make it a requirement for marriage. Since having children is not a requirement for marriage, your claim that marriage is about children is false, leaving your argument without logic.

How many couples (heterosexual of course) get married fully aware that they cannot ever have children. I would imagine that the percentage is very low. When my wife thought that we might not be able to have a baby, my wife cried almost daily.

The requirement is that the couple together forms a biologically matched set or help meet as it were. They are made to have sex together. The nut and bolt are both there... You don't just have a couple of nuts.

 

[cantata]

How many couples (heterosexual of course) get married fully aware that they cannot ever have children. I would imagine that the percentage is very low. When my wife thought that we might not be able to have a baby, my wife cried almost daily.

If you had learned before you were married that your now-wife couldn’t have children, would you not have married her?

 

[fated]

So you didn't say, "Marriage is about children, even if some people don't have them. Gay couples never have the biological children of both partners. That's it. That is a full logical argument."? Moving the goalposts when a key basis for your argument is destroyed is not logic. Sure sounds like you claimed that reproduction is the requirement to me.

There may very well be, but you have not presented it.



Saying that your arguments are illogical is not an attack on you. It would, however, make things a lot easier if you would just post your definition of marriage; what it entails, what should be included, and what should be excluded. Then, we can go from there.



If someone is saying you don't have a logical argument, it's pretty safe to assume that they don't understand it. There is no conspiracy here.



Here, we are in agreement.



No one has called you an idiot, at least that I've seen. Your argument IS illogical, which is the only reason it has been called such. And sometimes, your words ARE impenetrable. However, when one gets passionate, it's easy to type fast and have your words make sense to you, and then once you publish it, it doesn't necessarily make sense to everyone else. That happens to the best of us. However, when someone asks you for clarification, it is better to provide it than to whine about being 'attacked'.



No comment.



That's great. I'm sure you're very happy. Why would you want to interfere with others' happiness, though?



Um, no. If some married people don't have children (for whatever reason), then it logically follows that marriage is NOT 'about children'.



Neither do step-families, adoptive families, widows, widowers, and other atypical family types. But they're legally allowed to be (re)married.




Yeah... Um... No. It's not.




Yeah... Um... No. It's not. That is definitely not the argument.



In your opinion.

Because you certainly haven't provided a sound, logical, reasonable argument.

However, I have heard many sound, logical, and reasonable arguments in favor of same-sex marriage recognition.

The problem is that the system should have tiers. One tier is heterosexual couples that might soon have children. Another is other couples. And a third is those who have their own children. Every single one of those tiers is logical.

Good jurisprudence says that if someone has an adopted child, they should get some additional support, due to the child, especially if there's a disability, which is actually done. Who should be able to adopt? Normally, I would assume those who already have succeeded would be the prudent choice. Also, barren hetero-couples would make a lot of sense. I don't see how it makes sense to give children to gay couples more than it does to these other two groups.

I've been told that it is a violence to the child to adopt them out to gay couples. I suppose I'll obey that, the government should pour enough money and community support into the system that it doesn't become an issue. Except in extreme cases were the gay couple contains the next of kin, which would seem to make that adoption preferable, also by making for good jurisprudence of not involving the government in close family matters.

 

[David Brider]

Marriage is about children, even if some people don't have them.

No. Marriage is about two people making a lifelong commitment to each other.

David.

 

[Maren]

How many couples (heterosexual of course) get married fully aware that they cannot ever have children. I would imagine that the percentage is very low.

Probably far more than you are aware of. Most people who know they are infertile don't go around telling everyone. However we know from the statistics of various birth defects and the statistics of some medical procedures performed on children that there is a percentage that can't. Further, it doesn't matter how low the percentage is, the fact is there is no requirement that precludes them from marrying despite they fact they cannot have children.

When my wife thought that we might not be able to have a baby, my wife cried almost daily.

Yet that had nothing to do with your marriage, rather it had to do with her desire to have children. Again, there are married people here who have stated they have chosen not to have children.

The requirement is that the couple together forms a biologically matched set or help meet as it were. They are made to have sex together. The nut and bolt are both there... You don't just have a couple of nuts.

Yet that is your personal belief that is based on your religious views.. Homosexual people feel they match up very nicely biologically. It is little different of how racists claimed that married couples should match, that you don't mix colors. And no, I'm not comparing you to racists or trying to imply you are a bigot, merely claiming that you are using similar logic here to what racists used in the past.

 

[fated]

If we get rid of an institution that asserts that society prefers people to stay together and raise children together as a norm, then we should make a new one. Maybe we should call it "Real Marriage." For people who get married intending to stay together and have children.

 

[Maren]

The problem is that the system should have tiers. One tier is heterosexual couples that might soon have children. Another is other couples. And a third is those who have their own children. Every single one of those tiers is logical.

Good jurisprudence says that if someone has an adopted child, they should get some additional support, due to the child, especially if there's a disability, which is actually done. Who should be able to adopt? Normally, I would assume those who already have succeeded would be the prudent choice. Also, barren hetero-couples would make a lot of sense. I don't see how it makes sense to give children to gay couples more than it does to these other two groups.

I've been told that it is a violence to the child to adopt them out to gay couples. I suppose I'll obey that, the government should pour enough money and community support into the system that it doesn't become an issue. Except in extreme cases were the gay couple contains the next of kin, which would seem to make that adoption preferable, also by making for good jurisprudence of not involving the government in close family matters.

No, it's logic based on your belief system. However, it would appear that most disagree with your premise since people won't even think of creating that type of system today.

As for giving children to barren children and not homosexuals, why? There is no shortage of children needing to be adopted in the US today (much less when you start talking about the world). There may not be enough babies to go around, but by and large most gay families are not adopting babies. So, why should children remain in foster care rather than be adopted by couples that will care for them?

Last, I've heard that letting Christians raise children is child abuse (perhaps you have to). In fact, I can even pull in anecdotal evidence as a Christian preacher was just convicted of murder in the death of his child, it's in NC&E. Perhaps if I obey that we can get the government to fix that crisis in this country. Or maybe we shouldn't listen to what we have "heard" and instead rely on what research tells us, that being raised by homosexual couples is no worse than being raised by heterosexual couples.

 

[Maren]

If we get rid of an institution that asserts that society prefers people to stay together and raise children together as a norm, then we should make a new one. Maybe we should call it "Real Marriage." For people who get married intending to stay together and have children.

And if you want to pass laws to that effect, I won't have an issue. Just don't be surprised when you can't get enough votes to pass it into law.

 

[atomweaver]

Look, I have a wife and kids. Marriage is about children, even if some people don't have them.

Biblically, references to marriage far more often deal with either 1)property inheritance, or 2) the relationship between husband and wife. Children don't figure in as large as you make it out, here.

The historical Christian family unit that has done the actual work of raising the majority of Christian kids for the majority of Christian history was the mother, sister(s), and grandmothers, working in concert at home, raising the kids... while the husband(s) are away from home, working 18+ hour days (or far longer time frames for sailors, soldiers, etc). The "mom and dad, plus kids" family unit is an consequence of very modern lifestyles (circa 1940's - 50's). With respect to gender and parental responsibilities, a married lesbian couple more closely approximates historical Christian norms than the current 'standard' of "mom and dad plus 2.3 kids".

You are without historical precedent for your assertions. Your Biblical precedent is weak, as well....

 

[cantata]

If we get rid of an institution that asserts that society prefers people to stay together and raise children together as a norm, then we should make a new one. Maybe we should call it "Real Marriage." For people who get married intending to stay together and have children.

I look forward to seeing the evidence that children being raised by happily married couples are better off than children being raised by happily cohabiting couples.

I also look forward to seeing the evidence that children being raised by unhappily married couples are better off than children being raised by a single guardian or by a separated or divorced couple.

 

[LittleNipper]

If you had learned before you were married that your now-wife couldn’t have children, would you not have married her?

And just how would I have known that? The reality is that, I would not have looked to date a girl with the intention of marriage if I knew the girl was unable to conceive. I like kids...

The truth is that my wife was even on the pill for 5 years after we married, and I do feel that that may likely have caused much of our problems later. I would never recommend that for anyone.

However, our intention was to have children after we got settled. The reality is one never gets settled or has money enough. One should just get married and have the little buggers. One will be happier in the long run...

 

[David Brider]

If we get rid of an institution that asserts that society prefers people to stay together and raise children together as a norm, then we should make a new one.

As no such institution exists anyway, you'd have to make a new one.

However, we already have an institution that asserts that society prefers people to stay together.

It's called marriage.

And y'know what? Marriage isn't harmed one iota by extending its scope to include same-gender couples.

David.

 

[LittleNipper]

Probably far more than you are aware of. Most people who know they are infertile don't go around telling everyone. However we know from the statistics of various birth defects and the statistics of some medical procedures performed on children that there is a percentage that can't. Further, it doesn't matter how low the percentage is, the fact is there is no requirement that precludes them from marrying despite they fact they cannot have children.



Yet that had nothing to do with your marriage, rather it had to do with her desire to have children. Again, there are married people here who have stated they have chosen not to have children.



Yet that is your personal belief that is based on your religious views.. Homosexual people feel they match up very nicely biologically. It is little different of how racists claimed that married couples should match, that you don't mix colors. And no, I'm not comparing you to racists or trying to imply you are a bigot, merely claiming that you are using similar logic here to what racists used in the past.

The fact remains that most want children at some point, and homosexuals must do the sort or things with various body parts that were not made for the riggers they are being put through by people out of touch with that reality...

And while I might have fallen for a black woman, I would not have looked to marry such for the sake my our children with purpose. There can be problems. Black women can be very beautiful, but so can white. Both can be Christian, and that would be my only choice. But I grew up in a white neighborhood and attended an all white school for the most part. I wasn't about being a rebel for a rebel's sake...

 

[LittleNipper]

As no such institution exists anyway, you'd have to make a new one.

However, we already have an institution that asserts that society prefers people to stay together.

It's called marriage.

And y'know what? Marriage isn't harmed one iota by extending its scope to include same-gender couples.

David.

We don't know that. And the reality is, if we found out it was a terrible thing, it would already be far too late to reverse the problem once it was socially acceptable. Kind of like corn syrup. It is cheaper but it tends to make people fat... However, now it's found in everything. Processed foods could not exist without it, today.

 

[Freodin]

We don't know that. And the reality is, if we found out it was a terrible thing, it would already be far too late to reverse the problem once it was socially acceptable. Kind of like corn syrup. It is cheaper but it tends to make people fat... However, now it's found in everything. Processed foods could not exist without it, today.

So we should not change anything ever... because it might result in something horrible?

Well, that would be... horrible.

 

[cantata]

And just how would I have known that?

She might have had any number of medical problems with her reproductive system that could result in an inability to have children.

The reality is that, I would not have looked to date a girl with the intention of marriage if I knew the girl was unable to conceive. I like kids...

Do such women then deserve to be left on the shelf?

 

[cantata]

The truth is that my wife was even on the pill for 5 years after we married

??

I thought sex was only for procreation? Did you not have sex at all for those five years, LittleNipper?