On the matter of religion though, I stated before that religious aspects are bollocks, but I refer to my earlier posts for that, except for 1 point: I thought western society had advanced to the point where we all agreed that religion is a personal matter and that it shouldn't interfere with state matters. The state is secular.

It's worth fighting for - although in a non-violent way - as naming it differently is a clear sign of hidden discrimination. It says: "hey, we disapprove of you and your lifestyle, but we have to remain tolerant towards you". In a way it's the same as the segregation rules before Rosa Parks: You're all on the same bus, but a minority has to sit in an area that's reserved for its them.

"Invalid. Or we should go back to the renaissance time where a marriage can be disbanded for remaining childless. "

Invalid? That's rather technical language for someone who just failed to discriminate between form and coincidence! ZING!

"The only valid reason for marriage is love. If two people love eachother they should be able to get married. All the rest is bullshit."

So long as the state is doling out tax benefits, I don't see what's wrong with them doing it to reward the productive endeavor of heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage servers a function that homosexual unions do not.

"Your statement alone places you in one camp already. Your definition of "family" is very narrow. You even forgot about lesbian couples, but they seem to be forgot a lot in these discussions."

Lesbians are covered under the term "gay." I heard they like sexual partners of the same gender. That's still the definition for gay, right?

My definition of "family" is the same one that's been used for thousands of years. Are you taking issue with biology and nature? I didn't design sexual reproduction or the natural structure of society (again, for thousands of years) being based on that of the "narrow"ly defined family.

"A same-sex couple is able to form a firm base for kids though, a position well-proved by modern psychologic research."

Yeah, except for that pesky evidence to the contrary. You're quick to claim "proved" for something not remotely conclusive.

"Lesbian couples can conceive them on their own...."

That's just wrong. I can see why your claims on the science were similarly factually inaccurate.

All of you guys like watching and reading about animals [reproducing] way too much. I'm not judging your sexuality, I'm just suggesting that maybe professionals could help you achieve balance in your lives. Whatever that is. Weirdos.

"You have no choice in those distinctions, Einstein, yet you actively choose to deny a certain group the same as others by naming it differently."

I think nature denied them the ability to procreate, but I'll have to look into your theory that it was Einstein's call.

"The will to deny them that makes all the difference. It ultimatly shows you don't approve of it."

Damn you nature, you homophobic, judgemental bigot! Gay people want to create children and form families too! How dare you deny them their right!

" It says: "hey, we disapprove of you and your lifestyle, but we have to remain tolerant towards you". In a way it's the same as the segregation rules before Rosa Parks: You're all on the same bus, but a minority has to sit in an area that's reserved for its them."

Except that black people can do anything white people can do. And homosexuals can't do anything, like procreate, that heterosexuals can. And, as it turns out, procreation is kinda important to society.

I'm for government not being involved in marriage, but the claim that homosexual unions perform the same function in society is just false.

Its the personal interpretation that is being challenged though.  In the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case in CA that mandated gay marriage, the judge said that homosexuals are entitled to the same cultural legitimacy as heterosexuals and civil unions are discriminatory because they don't accord them the same level of dignity-- in other words, everybody else has the wrong attitude about gay marriage and the government is going to decree that change.

Spock, alright, you make fun of several linguistic errors. This is my POV in a nutshell:

- Denying "marriage" to same-sex couples cause of religious reasons is a sham for homophobia. Either you chose to follow the bible all of the time or not at all. As the first option isn't picked (or even possible), you lose all ground to prohibit same sex marriages on religious grounds.
==> An example of not following the bible is Timotheus famous statement about women instucting men.

- Denying same sex marriage because of it being "unnatural" is bollocks as well. The term "unnatural" in itself is very undefined and can embody anything you want, but none of the definitions is going to be consistent. Biological procreation, the definition you gave to "unnatural" doesn't work. It would make all marriages that remain childless annulled/invalid, wether that was a deliberate choice of the couple or not.
Also, it has to be said that having children does not equal a functional family.

"So long as the state is doling out tax benefits, I don't see what's wrong with them doing it to reward the productive endeavor of heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage servers a function that homosexual unions do not."

Please inform me on how a heterosexual relationship is by default more succesful/productive than a homosexual one?

I do not defend moral or "unnatural" arguments against gay "marriage."

"Please inform me on how a heterosexual relationship is by default more succesful/productive than a homosexual one?"

Heterosexual relationships are capable of producing children. Homosexual relationships are not. There's distinction in production capacity for you.

[Repost of what I posted above (deleted) because I did a huge edit (ie, more than half the post is new )]

The point, BiefstukFriet, is that marriage as a government institution encourages and rewards those who participate in this endeavor which has the capacity to facilitate ideal procreation. This function differentiates heterosexual unions from homosexual unions--and this function was dictated by nature, not man.

"Why deny someone marriage because they can't pro-create?"

Because they cannot procreate!

Look up form vs coincidence. You'll believe it if I'm not the one explaining it to you.

Edit: Apparently it's not as easy to google a breakdown as I expected. Damn you humanity, not being into logic and philosophy and shizzle! This is, literally, Logic 101 stuff. Or 1001 stuff. You get the idea.

Essentially, whether something is the way it is by form or coincidence matters. Heterosexual unions are, by form, capable of creating children--regardless of the fact that not all heterosexuals are medically capable. They're designed to be capable of this function. Most can. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, by form, are not capable of creating children. They're fundamentally incapable of performing this function. None can. Ever.

The point being that coincidence and some people getting kicked in the nuts doesn't detract from the fact that, by form heterosexuals can perform the function of procreation and homosexuals cannot.

That's not to say that government should be giving them tax breaks for possibly contributing to this function in society, but the distinction is significant. That's an absolutely massive function necessary to society that one group can perform and the other cannot.

I don't think government should have any involvement in the matter (you could [have sex] whoever you want and call it whatever you want), I'm just playing the devil's advocate and offering biology lessons!

If gay people have the RIGHT to get married, if they have the RIGHT to the same cultural legitimacy, don't they have the RIGHT to perform the function which is the source of heterosexual marriage's cultural legitimacy? Oh wait, they can't. Nature just isn't that way. You can't legislate cultural legitimacy any more than you can legislate biology.

Government doesn't have positions. It's just huge and oppressive.

Marriage is a co-op baby farm. Or, at least, it's a baby farm.

bief, i believe there is laws, ordinances, something that says "anal" is a nono... also back to the uunnatural argument... nuts n bolts go together not bolts n bolts or nuts n nuts.  Animals were made by whom or whatever you believe "and i could care less what it is" where a male and female plug onto eacch other . If this just pisses you off that you and your bf cant procreate by putting some dna in his rectum, take it up with the grand creator of things.

But on a fair shake of things, if we let all the gay men n women free reign, it would be genocide on themselves. so WE MUST SAVE THEM FROM HARM!!!!.

btw i used " you n your bff" to simplify the sentence

> Mister Spock wrote:

> Government doesn't have positions. It's just huge and oppressive.

Marriage is a co-op baby farm. Or, at least, it's a baby farm.

No it isn't, legally speaking merely a way of writing who get's what when you end up being fed up with eachother. There are no small letters stating 'must make babies'. All one needs to make babies is a good helping of sperm and a vagina.

@ Bacchus, I'm not gay and I do not enjoy putting things up my anus.

As I was saying, nature has nothing to do with marriage. So it's not a reason to ban Gays from marrying.

Okay, then look at it like this:

Marriage is a club for people who can, by form (that is, not counting injuries/diseases), procreate.

If the secular elite think they can ORDER the religious public to put the government first and God is something they can have after they eat their peas, then, they can have the same trouble Caesar had.  Viva Cristo Rey!

> The Yell wrote:

> If the secular elite think they can ORDER the religious public to put the government first and God is something they can have after they eat their peas, then, they can have the same trouble Caesar had.  Viva Cristo Rey!

How would allowing Gay marriage make religious people set aside God? Gay marriage won't harm or change the lives of religious people in the slightest. All it'll do is piss them off. Well boo-frigging-hoo, the goverment does that all the time.