PDA

View Full Version : Same Sex Marriage - Arguments for and against



Petros Agapetos
12-12-16, 18:41
Same sex marriage - Arguments for and against - The right of homosexuals to marry

Gay marriage or same-sex marriage refers to marriage between two people of the same gender, typically because they are homosexual. It is a controversial subject in many religions and countries. Some countries allow a similar status of "civil union" which is marriage in all but name.

Arguments for Gay Marriage

If people want to get married, even if they of the same gender, there is no good reason to stop them. Therefore gay marriage should be allowed.

Gay marriage provides stability and benefits to the lives of those involved. For example, if one person is sick, the marriage partner has additional rights when dealing with authorities.

In July 2007, Austin Cline ran a poll on his weblog asking whether atheists should be allowed to marry. Respondents overwhelmingly said that marriage is a civil institution, not a religious one (it should be kept in mind that this poll was posted on an atheist weblog, and therefore the distribution of respondents was certainly skewed). Based on this, Cline drew the obvious conclusion:

"If religion isn't a good reason to prevent atheists from getting married, how can it be a good reason to prevent gays from getting married?"

Arguments against Gay Marriage

Both religious and secular arguments have been presented against gay marriage. It is notable, however, that most of the opponents of gay marriage—certainly the most vocal ones—present religious arguments, either alone or in addition to secular arguments. Rarely, if ever, does anyone present secular arguments alone. This leads to the conclusion that opposition to gay marriage is primarily rooted in religious beliefs. Arguments from religious beliefs fail as arguments since there is no evidence to suggest any holy book is true, and places like the United States have separation of church and state.

Petros Agapetos
12-12-16, 18:42
God defined marriage as between a man and a woman

Based on Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24, apologists say:

"marriage was ordained by God and instituted in law."
— Mike Pence, US Vice President 2017

Contrary to apologists' claims, the Bible does not explicitly define marriage in this way. Apologists are interpreting the Bible to fit their own preconceptions.

The notion of "complementarity" of a man and a woman in marriage is contradicted by other laws that allow for polygamy Deuteronomy 21:15-17, as well as divorce after sexual immorality Matthew 5:32. These arrangements are not condemned and often directly condoned by the God of the Bible. Therefore, marriage is not defined as between one man and one woman.

Petros Agapetos
12-12-16, 18:43
Contrary to the purpose of marriage

"[Same sex marriage] also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children."

This is a teleological argument based on the suppose purpose of marriage. However, the assumption that marriage has a particular "purpose" has not been established. Marriage is a human invented concept and only has meaning that we bestow on it.
"[Heterosexual marriage] naturally tends to create families. On the contrary, same-sex “marriage” is intrinsically sterile."

This variation of the argument commits the naturalistic fallacy. Just because something occurs in nature, does not in itself make it desirable.

Petros Agapetos
12-12-16, 18:43
Human nature

Apologists claim that same sex marriage violates natural law.

"Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law. "

There is no grounds to believe any "natural law" exists, except in the human mind. There is also little agreement as to what natural law entails. It is also difficult to justify any such natural law without committing the naturalistic fallacy.

Petros Agapetos
12-12-16, 18:45
Children's Interests

"It is in the child’s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent."

"[Heterosexual marriage] is the glue of the American family and the safest harbor to raise children."

— Mike Pence, US Vice President 2017

Research shows that having two parents, either same sex or heterosexual, is about the same for children.

"On the basis of a remarkably consistent body of research on lesbian and gay parents and their children, the American Psychological Association and other health, professional, and scientific organizations have concluded that there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation

Petros Agapetos
12-12-16, 18:46
Validates and promotes deviant lifestyles

Apologists claim that same sex marriage would validate and promote this lifestyle, presumably making people homosexual.

That assumes homosexuality is a choice, which it is not. Since it is not a choice, it does not matter if this lifestyle is validated or promoted since it will not significantly influence people's behaviour. It's like saying an owl festival would encourage people to become owls, which is absurd.

Petros Agapetos
12-12-16, 18:46
Devalues Traditional Marriage

Apologists argue that same sex marriage devalues traditional marriage.

This is a vague statement: what does the apologist mean by "devalue"? The existing heterosexual marriages can continue in exactly the same way as before. No harm, no foul

Petros Agapetos
12-12-16, 18:47
Weaken public morality

Apologists argue that same sex marriage weakens public morality.

This argument assumes that homosexuality or same sex marriage is immoral, which is not generally accepted. The concept of "public morality" and how it may be "weakened" is vague and arguably meaningless.

Petros Agapetos
12-12-16, 18:48
Subverts state support for marriage

"One of the main reasons why the State bestows numerous benefits on marriage is that by its very nature and design, marriage provides the normal conditions for a stable, affectionate, and moral atmosphere that is beneficial to the upbringing of children—all fruit of the mutual affection of the parents.

This argument is an argument from authority that the purpose of marriage is to raise children. However, the state is not a generally recognised authority on this matter.

The state supports childless marriages. Based on this argument, these couples are exploiting the state by taking benefits and not spending them on children. This is absurd.

If it were necessary to only support child rearing marriages, the state could change regulations so only these families receive state support.

Petros Agapetos
12-12-16, 18:49
http://www.theapricity.com/forum/images/icons/icon1.png
Violates freedom of conscience

"In every situation where marriage affects society, the State will expect Christians and all people of good will to betray their consciences by condoning, through silence or act, an attack on the natural order and Christian morality."

Freedom to persecute others is not a generally recognised freedom. Freedom of conscience is not absolute: for instance, it does not extend to owning slaves. Society and governments can limit what is acceptable behaviour and it does not need to defer to freedom of conscience.

Petros Agapetos
12-12-16, 18:49
It offends God

Apologists argue against same sex marriages because it supposedly offends God.

This assumes God exists, God has a morality in mind, humans could know what God has in mind and humans should obey God. None of this has been established reliably.

Petros Agapetos
12-12-16, 18:50
Pushes people away from religion

Acceptance of gay marriage has been blamed for the decline of religion in the US. However, while this might explain people changing denominations, it does not explain why people leave religions altogether.

Petros Agapetos
12-12-16, 18:51
Argument from Semantics: "Calling something marriage does not make it marriage."

"marriage is between one man and one woman and once you redefine that you lose the essence of marriage itself."

The meaning of words has changed over time.
If a word is used in a particular way or context, that is the meaning of the word.
As Wittgenstein argued, "meaning is use".
Calling something marriage does, in a sense,
make it marriage as long as we have a shared understanding of the usage.
You don't necessarily need to agree with the usage to understand it.

Petros Agapetos
12-12-16, 18:52
Same-sex marriage (also called gay marriage) is the union of two individuals of the same sex in a marital relationship, with the full legal rights and responsibilities allotted to this contract in a given jurisdiction. Legally defined marriage of homosexual couples is limited to a minority of jurisdictions at this time; more common is a "civil union," which includes many of the all-important legal trappings, without the title "marriage" and the religious overtones some think are implied by the word.

Supporters of same-sex marriage may refer to it as "marriage equality," while opponents may call it "redefining marriage," or may use scare quotes (i.e., same-sex "marriage").

Already as of July 2015, the institution of traditional marriage has been improved destroyed in twenty-one countries. As a result, millions of poor innocent people around the world have been forced to watch their gay friends and neighbors declare their loving commitment for one another publicly. This, of course, is a sign of progress in society the Satan. Marriage has been shifting from a religiously-dictated ritual to a social construct that is no longer related to the personal beliefs, or to any ritualism specific to organized religion. Disgusting!

Since the news media and partisan groups tend to treat both of these topics as a single issue, this article will do the same. Let us acknowledge at the outset, though, that conflating civil unions with marriage, and the rights allotted by marriage with the institution of marriage, is erroneous, and a common rhetorical trick used by conservative commentators. Let us further acknowledge that this conflation (or lack thereof) is precisely the reason for modern court rulings about equality of gay citizens if they must have a "separate but equal" union, i.e., an alternative to marriage.

There are several religious groups which endorse or carry out gay marriages (Though many, particularly the Christian groups, have enjoyed yet another endured a schism when they chose to do so) including Episcopalians, Presbyterians Quakers, Unitarian Universalists, Eckists, Raëlians, Druids, Native American faiths with two-spirit traditions, certain Reform Jewish Rabbis and Wiccans.

Petros Agapetos
12-12-16, 19:01
Same-sex marriage became legal (nationwide or in some parts) in Argentina (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Argentina), Belgium (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Belgium), Brazil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Brazil), Canada (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada), Colombia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Colombia), Denmark (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Denmark), France (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_France), Iceland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Iceland), Ireland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland), Luxembourg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Luxembourg), Mexico (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Mexico), the Netherlands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Netherlands), New Zealand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Zealand), Norway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Norway), Portugal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Portugal), South Africa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_South_Africa), Spain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Spain), Sweden (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Sweden), the United Kingdom (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_Kingdom) the United States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States), and Uruguay (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Uruguay). The law in Finland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Finland) is expected to take effect on 1 March 2017.

Petros Agapetos
12-12-16, 19:03
Legal recognition of same-sex marriage in Canada followed a series of constitutional challenges based on the equality provisions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_Fifteen_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_ and_Freedoms) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms). In the first such case, Halpern v. Canada (Attorney General) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halpern_v._Canada_(Attorney_General)), same-sex marriage ceremonies performed in Ontario (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Ontario) on 14 January 2001 were subsequently validated when the common law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law), mixed-sex definition of marriage was held to be unconstitutional. Similar rulings had legalized same-sex marriage in eight provinces and one territory when the 2005 Civil Marriage Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Marriage_Act) defined marriage throughout Canada as "the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others."

Belmonde
12-12-16, 22:38
There is no any argument in support of heterosexual or homosexual marriage between two persons except for a poor person marrying a rich one, who is soon going the give the money. The marriage is an idiotism that devastated the sexual life of the society. The religion introduced it to produce more idiots and reduce the sexual partners, so to make everybody's situation worse. The main purpose of the marriage has always been punishment of the adulterer by burning alive, but the religious people simply gradually get rid of that to feel more comfortable, but they kept the nonsense. Purposes of more kind nature are ruining the sexual life of the married and self-muitilation, like those eating only one type of food all life long in the concentration camps, the rest is immoral. The decline of religion should have resulted in the final ban of all the marriage, not in leaving it alone.

Petros Agapetos
12-12-16, 22:58
Do you support the right of gay couples to (i) marry, (ii) adopt children, (iii) have their own children (indirectly or artificially)?

Belmonde
13-12-16, 03:37
deleted post

LeBrok
13-12-16, 05:11
There is no any argument in support of heterosexual or homosexual marriage between two persons except for a poor person marrying a rich one, who is soon going the give the money. The marriage is an idiotism that devastated the sexual life of the society. The religion introduced it to produce more idiots and reduce the sexual partners, so to make everybody's situation worse.
How do you explain that marriage, or simple partnering for life one to one, exists even in simplest societies of modern hunter gatherers. Check amazon jungle tiebs, Papuans or Inuits. They live without organized religion, just with simple spiritual beliefs. How do you explain that even in animal kingdom there are many examples of animals who stick together for life, and yet they don't even have simple spirituality, never mind religion.
It looks like natural inclination of many species on earth, especially the ones with ration of male to female being one to one.



The main purpose of the marriage has always been punishment of the adulterer by burning alive, but the religious people simply gradually get rid of that to feel more comfortable, but they kept the nonsense. Purposes of more kind nature are ruining the sexual life of the married and self-muitilation, like those eating only one type of food all life long in the concentration camps, the rest is immoral. The decline of religion should have resulted in the final ban of all the marriage, not in leaving it alone.You are so concentrated on sex that you managed to miss the most important part of marriage which is bringing offspring maturity. Making sure that next generation survives and prosper.

LeBrok
13-12-16, 05:27
Children should not be adopted by anyone without their consent because it is an age discrimination against them. All children able to speak should be old enough to choose for themselves and with who they want to be. Children should have the rights to choose everything for themselves as adults, not only what they want to eat. There is no evidence that a child with 150 IQ and superhuman abilities is less mature than the older and should be submissed to dumb parents.I have a feeling that you are 12 years old with IQ150, and with parents you hate. Is this so?



I am against all kinds of marriages because they prevent me to be with who I like, who are always married. Because I am not a hot dog-lover. I spent all my childhood in a prison facility because I forced my married teacher, who didn't want to do it with me because she was so married. Anyway after divorcing she consentualy did it with lots of people and peoples. I hoped Santa to take me out of prison for Christmas, but he didn't. Then, after turning out ten, I realized the basic truth I hadn't heard of- just don't do it. Some tribes for example teach their children to share everything because they consider all conflicts evil. And what the judicial society taught me as a child- both no marriage and no sex or prison? They sentenced me so young that I attempted crying in my cell, but then I found out more interesting things there- writing poems about zombies. P.s this is a horrible drug called bonzai, ask me in private to try.I see. No wonder your writing sounds like a psychedelic vision.

Fire Haired14
13-12-16, 06:10
II. Children should not be adopted by anyone without their consent because it is an age discrimination against them. All children able to speak should be old enough to choose for themselves and with who they want to be. Children should have the rights to choose everything for themselves as adults, not only what they want to eat. There is no evidence that a child with 150 IQ and superhuman abilities is less mature than the older and should be submissed to dumb parents.

Kids and teenagers might be about as intelligent as adults but they're not as wise. Wisdom comes from experience. They're not experienced/wise enough to know what's best for them.

Petros Agapetos
13-12-16, 07:42
Argument #1: That same-sex marriage would destroy the institution of marriage.

The often-quoted reference from Romans 1:29-32 omits the following verse, Romans 2:1, which reads "Therefore you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things."
No credible study has ever found that children are negatively impacted by being raised in a lesbian or gay household.

Petros Agapetos
13-12-16, 07:44
Argument #2: That if same-sex marriage is legalized, polygamy will follow.Even if this concern had a rational basis, a simpler solution to this problem would be to propose a constitutional amendment (http://civilliberty.about.com/od/historyprofiles/fl/History-of-Constitutional-Amendments.htm) banning polygamy--which would be easily ratified--rather than fooling around with an anti-gay constitutional amendment that only one-third of Americans support.

Petros Agapetos
13-12-16, 07:45
Argument #3: That same-sex marriage would make heterosexual divorces too easy.No, seriously. The article (http://www.nogaymarriage.com/tenarguments.asp) actually describes this as an "even greater objective of the homosexual movement" than the legalization of same-sex marriage proper. The article makes no real attempt to explain why this would happen, or how this would happen, but presumably one is expected to accept the statement at face value without giving any real thought to it

Petros Agapetos
13-12-16, 07:46
Argument #4: That same-sex marriage would require schools to teach tolerance.People who support same-sex marriage also tend to support tolerance education in public schools, but the former isn't essential to the latter. Just ask Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who vetoed a bill legalizing same-sex marriage and signed a bill enacting a gay-friendly public school tolerance curriculum in the same month.

Petros Agapetos
13-12-16, 07:46
Argument #5: That same-sex married couples would be able to adopt.Again, this does not require same-sex marriage. California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey (http://usatravel.about.com/od/States/ss/New-Jersey.htm), New Mexico (http://usatravel.about.com/od/States/ss/New-Mexico.htm), and Oregon all specifically permit joint same-sex adoption (http://gaylife.about.com/od/gayparentingadoption/a/gaycoupleadopt.htm), and most other states do not specifically prohibit it.

Petros Agapetos
13-12-16, 07:47
Argument #6: That foster parents would be required to pass sensitivity training.I'm not clear on what possible relationship this would have with same-sex marriage (http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/qt/Same-Sex-Marriage-Bans-History.htm). Again, some states may require such training and some states may not, but the presence or absence of legalized same-sex marriage has nothing to do with the issue.

Petros Agapetos
13-12-16, 07:47
Argument #7: That Social Security can't afford to pay for same-sex couples.In argument #1, the AFA article criticized the low marriage rate. But in order for Social Security to be an issue, lesbian and gay Americans would have to remain single altogether rather than becoming heterosexual. The Religious Right's vision of millions of lesbians and gay Americans converting to heterosexuality and marrying members of the opposite sex would have to be written off entirely in order to produce any economic benefit based on denying same-sex couples the right to marry.

And any such benefit would be small-scale anyway. If 4% of the U.S. population identifies as lesbian or gay and half of lesbians and gay men get married, then that's only a 2% increase in the national marriage rate. That won't make or break Social Security.

Petros Agapetos
13-12-16, 07:48
Argument #8: That legal U.S. same-sex marriage would encourage its spread.This is the only argument on the list that doesn't strain credulity. Legal same-sex marriage in the United States probably would encourage other nations to also legalize same-sex marriage. But Canada was really ahead of the curve on this one, and will probably be given most of the credit by historians.

Petros Agapetos
13-12-16, 07:49
Argument #9: That same-sex marriage would make evangelism more difficult.And just what sort of evangelism are we talking about here, exactly?

In any event, I find it remarkable that any contemporary Christian would see a social policy they don't like as an obstacle to evangelism. A little less than two millennia ago, Christians were actually being executed by the Roman Empire (http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/romanempire/g/102710-Roman-Empire.htm), and surviving texts do not indicate that they saw this as an impediment to evangelism. Why would a change in marriage law, one that does not even directly impact heterosexual couples (https://www.verywell.com/he-can-tell-you-if-your-marriage-will-last-2337794), somehow destroy evangelism when several generations of Roman emperors could not?

Petros Agapetos
13-12-16, 07:49
Argument #10: That same-sex marriage would bring about divine retribution.Again, a little perspective is in order. More than 3,000 children die every day of malaria; during the 1990s, an estimated 100 million children died of starvation; AIDS is sweeping the Global South; and the issue that will bring profound divine retribution is a change in marriage law?

I also have to question any theology that portrays God as some sort of violent, capricious bogeyman who must be supplicated, like the malevolent spirits of animist traditions, by sacrifices and incantations. The first generation of Christians welcomed the idea of divine intervention with the word "maranatha": "Come, Lord Jesus." There is no trace of that message, so central to the earliest Christian teachings, in this AFA article

Petros Agapetos
13-12-16, 07:50
What arguments you have for and against same sex marriage. Discuss.

Belmonde
13-12-16, 08:20
sorry about the last post, it wasn't me

Maleth
13-12-16, 18:01
You might find this interesting Petros. It has already been discussed extensively.

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/12967-What-do-you-think-of-homosexuality-(and-gay-marriage)?highlight=sex+marriage

mobileacc200
16-12-16, 07:45
Hehehehehehehe, Petros the King

Petros Agapetos
16-12-16, 18:28
Which of the argument presented in the first few posts can you refute?
List an argument, offer your counter-argument, and let's discuss, please.

mobileacc200
18-12-16, 05:23
I would allow them to marry but not to adopt children.

LeBrok
18-12-16, 05:34
I would allow them to marry but not to adopt children. Who are you to allow free people do something?

mobileacc200
18-12-16, 05:43
Who are you to allow free people do something?
No one is free. Being free in this world is just an illusion. And regarding giving them kids or rather not giving them kids makes me answer your question with these words: A good person.

LeBrok
18-12-16, 06:42
No one is free. Being free in this world is just an illusion.Oh, you thought I'm talking about some total and utopian freedoms. How about getting down to the real world and talk about freedoms that we cherish in our Western World. Like freedom of religion, speech, selecting partners, traveling abroad, watching every stupid show you want, making kids, or adopting kids or not. As long as anyone who wants to adopt a kid seems to be a good material for a parent, they should be free to do it. Don't take my word for it. There are already research statistics into quality of parenthood of gay people. Guess what? They are able to be good parents and raise healthy, smart, loving, good children. This is not my fantasy acting up but objective science saying.



And regarding giving them kids or rather not giving them kids makes me answer your question with these words: A good person.This is precious. You call yourself a "good person", even though you will limit someone else's freedoms, and make decision for them whether they should adopt or not. Seems that you are more tyrannical and cruel than a good person.

davef
18-12-16, 07:39
I support gay marriage and rights, always and forever!!! Two men or women marry, and life goes on, and nobody gets hurt as a result of their matrimony!

mobileacc200
18-12-16, 12:21
Oh, you thought I'm talking about some total and utopian freedoms. How about getting down to the real world and talk about freedoms that we cherish in our Western World. Like freedom of religion, speech, selecting partners, traveling abroad, watching every stupid show you want, making kids, or adopting kids or not. As long as anyone who wants to adopt a kid seems to be a good material for a parent, they should be free to do it. Don't take my word for it. There are already research statistics into quality of parenthood of gay people. Guess what? They are able to be good parents and raise healthy, smart, loving, good children. This is not my fantasy acting up but objective science saying.


This is precious. You call yourself a "good person", even though you will limit someone else's freedoms, and make decision for them whether they should adopt or not. Seems that you are more tyrannical and cruel than a good person.
I am cruel because i dont want to give poor child to sick couple? Who the **** are you to give it??? You are nobody. If god didn't want to give them children do you really think you can decide that. So i would say you are tyrant and a butcher.

Boreas
18-12-16, 13:53
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/25/Same-sex_marriage_map_Europe_detailed.svg/300px-Same-sex_marriage_map_Europe_detailed.svg.png

Real border of EU is clear.

LeBrok
18-12-16, 19:15
I am cruel because i dont want to give poor child to sick couple? Who the **** are you to give it??? You are nobody. If god didn't want to give them children do you really think you can decide that. So i would say you are tyrant and a butcher.The only thing you have proved yourself is that you are mentally unstable and morally sick and you shouldn't raise children. Try to stay civil if you want to post on Eupedia.

mobileacc200
18-12-16, 20:24
The only thing you have proved yourself is that you are mentally unstable and morally sick and you shouldn't raise children. Try to stay civil if you want to post on Eupedia.
I am like 200x more intelligent and civil then you are. I simply replied to topic creator that i dont agree with these couples to adopt children while its ok if they want to marry. And you started to rent going all crazy, pls dont quote, send me privat msgs or talk to me anymore since you cant stay civil but rather you act like you have mental issues.

Also i have reported you for lack of manners and insults.

mobileacc200
18-12-16, 20:29
Worst and most unhuman thing that we can do is give children to be adopted by these people.

LeBrok
18-12-16, 20:34
Worst and most unhuman thing that we can do is give children to adopted to these people.
What are the facts standing behind your assessment that gay people are bad for children? I hope that with your superior intelligence you can come up with statistics and research confirming you point of view. I hope we don't need to rely only on your beliefs, fears and guesses.

mobileacc200
18-12-16, 20:44
What are the facts standing behind your assessment that gay people are bad for children? I hope that with your superior intelligence you can come up with statistics and research confirming you point of view. I hope we don't need to rely only on your beliefs, fears and guesses.

We cant be so cruel to sacrifice these children like this and injure them irreversibly only to artificially make things look like they are normal. Even tho they still wont be normal. Its wrong and unnatural. Only demon would sacrifice children like this.

Maleth
18-12-16, 21:41
We cant be so cruel to sacrifice these children like this and injure them irreversibly only to artificially make things look like they are normal. Even tho they still wont be normal. Its wrong and unnatural. Only demon would sacrifice children like this.

Where is the proof these children will be injured. I think we have enough examples and experience that you are talking pure rubbish. Children are injured if they are brought by unstable couples were a number of abuses are present such as drugs, alchahol for example, irrelevant to whether they are heteros or homos. Children are also often injured when they are brought up in mass in orphanages institutions where no one is giving them INDIVIDUAL love and attention they need, albeit being better then being thrown in the street.

LeBrok
18-12-16, 22:21
We cant be so cruel to sacrifice these children like this and injure them irreversibly only to artificially make things look like they are normal. Even tho they still wont be normal. Its wrong and unnatural. Only demon would sacrifice children like this.
I believed you that you are so intelligent and you can find facts to support your statements. Sadly I was wrong trusting you. You keep posting only your beliefs and prejudices.
Do you know any gay couple raising children, to see how it is first hand?

mobileacc200
19-12-16, 02:49
They will never get children for adoption, and if they ever do it will mean that this world has lost its soul.

I don't have to show you proof's for something that is clearly wrong to do and especially with something sensetive like our children. After you kill me, you are free to take the children but as long as i am alive i should never give them to you.

You can have sex and perversions wih your partners, even get married. But please leave other people children out of this.

LeBrok
19-12-16, 03:44
They will never get children for adoption, and if they ever do it will mean that this world has lost its soul.I'm sorry but your knowledge on the subject is very rudimentary to say the least. Adoption by gay parents already exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_adoption


I don't have to show you proof's for something that is clearly wrong to do and especially with something sensetive like our children.Yes you need to, otherwise you are in same group of fearful and ignorant people who claimed in the past that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, because they are too stupid, or who claimed that slavery shouldn't end, because white people are naturally superior to other races, and were against countless other improvements to society in 20th century. All claims were based only on tradition, wrong beliefs, and fear of changes. They also believed that God was on their side. Exactly what you are holding onto.
100 years later the western world is well and better than ever. People are enjoying equality, inclusiveness, democracy, health, good standard of living and freedoms.
Do you understand now why we need a proof that what you claiming is true, because it might be as well just a fantasy in your head and nothing to do with reality. Like a fantasy our predecessors has had that giving equal rights to women and abolishing slavery will undermine morality, unravel fabric of society, bring the end of the world or kill a soul. They were wrong and as well you might be too.

Maleth
19-12-16, 10:37
They will never get children for adoption, and if they ever do it will mean that this world has lost its soul.

I don't have to show you proof's for something that is clearly wrong to do and especially with something sensetive like our children. After you kill me, you are free to take the children but as long as i am alive i should never give them to you.

You can have sex and perversions wih your partners, even get married. But please leave other people children out of this.

How ignorant you are. No body wants your children if you can manage to bring them up, when you talk about adoption you are talking of couples or mothers WHO CANNOT CARE FOR THEIR CHILDREN and given a BETTER chance with adoptive parents who according to a rigid system will secure this. You think children are objects being thrown here and there as they please without being monitored by Social workers and other people who are experts in the subject?

Petros Agapetos
26-12-16, 04:35
Here is a great video from the Atheist Experience where they talk about gay marriage. Excellent clip.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bMsLgfv5Vo&t=107s

Which is easier, letting gay couples marriage, or completely abolishing the institution of marriage (so that gay people can't get married)?
Marriage has to do with survivor benefits, substitute decision making in times of incapacity, child benefits, taxes, salary, government benefits, etc.
All the legal infrastructure is already in place, it is just a matter of not discriminating.