Am I the only atheist opposed to same-sex marriage?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-01-2014, 02:47 PM (This post was last modified: 05-01-2014 02:56 PM by nach_in.)
RE: Am I the only atheist opposed to same-sex marriage?
(05-01-2014 02:45 PM)veitstoss Wrote:  
(05-01-2014 02:29 PM)nach_in Wrote:  So what happens to every children born outside wedlock? we give them less rights to them too? ...
Do you realize how violent you arguments are? how intrusive in people's life your ideas can get? How destructive of your precious social well being they are?
Like I said, I don't consider it an equalities or rights issue. I don't feel that marriage can be redefined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#Ri...bligations

Click on that link, read, inform and educate yourself. You'll fin that marriage has many purposes and "sanction" reproduction is just one of them, not even the principal, it's barely an important one.

That element is the basis of all your view, but it is wrong, whether you like it or not, it is false. So you either insist in your false view out of stubbornness, accept the contrary or present new arguments to try to save it.

You pick one

[Image: sigvacachica.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 02:48 PM
RE: Am I the only atheist opposed to same-sex marriage?
(05-01-2014 02:45 PM)veitstoss Wrote:  Like I said, I don't consider it an equalities or rights issue. I don't feel that marriage can be redefined.

(1) How can you not?
(2) No one is asking you to redefine it. No one.

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 02:48 PM
RE: Am I the only atheist opposed to same-sex marriage?
(05-01-2014 02:45 PM)veitstoss Wrote:  I don't feel that marriage can be redefined.

It has been redefined numerous times in history.

Remember when interracial couples could not legally marry, due to the definition of marriage at the time? Guess, what, the definition was changed and interracial marriage was made legal.

Those who claim that marriage cannot be redefined are clueless about history, clearly.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Foxen's post
05-01-2014, 02:48 PM
RE: Am I the only atheist opposed to same-sex marriage?
(05-01-2014 02:42 PM)veitstoss Wrote:  Like I said, I don't consider it an equalities or rights issue. I don't feel that marriage can be redefined.

WTF are you on about ? Just admit that gays make you feel icky. It's straightforward.

Anyway I'm pretty clear that you're a troll. Like Starkers said, you can't be this dumb. I refuse to believe that it's possible, although like all good rationalists I can be convinced by sufficient evidence.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like morondog's post
05-01-2014, 02:50 PM
RE: Am I the only atheist opposed to same-sex marriage?
didn't watch the video huh?
Too bad. Lewis Black can cut to the heart of a matter with surgical precision AND make you laugh at yourself at the same time.


**shakes head**

(not you Foxen - the prejudiced idiot who's against gay marriage)

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 02:50 PM
RE: Am I the only atheist opposed to same-sex marriage?
(05-01-2014 02:45 PM)veitstoss Wrote:  
(05-01-2014 02:29 PM)nach_in Wrote:  [quote='veitstoss' pid='459076' dateline='1388953146']



So what happens to every children born outside wedlock? we give them less rights to them too? ...
Do you realize how violent you arguments are? how intrusive in people's life your ideas can get? How destructive of your precious social well being they are?
Like I said, I don't consider it an equalities or rights issue. I don't feel that marriage can be redefined.

Well then you are wrong and stupid. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia Marriage is a civil right so gtf over it. Don't like gay marriage don't have one.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Revenant77x's post
05-01-2014, 02:54 PM
RE: Am I the only atheist opposed to same-sex marriage?
(05-01-2014 01:04 PM)veitstoss Wrote:  Marriage and the legality of it is not about resulting children but the potential for having them in terms of the components required for sexual reproduction.


Huh? I never had any intention to procreate, and I had 2 husbands, both of whom also had no interest in procreating.

We all had the components needed to procreate, but we didn't care to.

What does that have to do with marriage? Marriage is about facing the world as a team. And among many other things that requires being able to look after sick mates in the hospital, being able to make sure someone's last wishes are followed, and property rights in case someone dies.

Marriage is not about procreation. Marriage facilitates better child rearing.

Hence, if we get a bunch of same sex couples, we may finally be able to get more of the unwanted kids out there adopted.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Dom's post
05-01-2014, 02:55 PM
RE: Am I the only atheist opposed to same-sex marriage?
(05-01-2014 02:48 PM)Foxen Wrote:  
(05-01-2014 02:45 PM)veitstoss Wrote:  I don't feel that marriage can be redefined.

It has been redefined numerous times in history.

Remember when interracial couples could not legally marry, due to the definition of marriage at the time? Guess, what, the definition was changed and interracial marriage was made legal.

Those who claim that marriage cannot be redefined are clueless about history, clearly.

And there goes my next reply.

To stop "redefining marriage" as it were, the definition should be updated to:

The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which two individuals, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of spouses in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.

-please note this is only changing eight words from the currently accepted legal definition.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 03:06 PM
RE: Am I the only atheist opposed to same-sex marriage?
(05-01-2014 12:50 PM)veitstoss Wrote:  Allow me to state my view.

Being non-religious, I don't oppose same-sex marriage from a church or 'moral' point of view. I don't accept that the church or any other faith 'owns' the 'sacrament' of marriage. Rather, I oppose it from a socio-biological point of view.

Stripped down to its bare essentials, a marriage certificate is a legal document. It seems to me that, by far, the principal reason for marriage as a legal institution is to sanction the procreation of children - i.e the continuation of the human species.

The vast majority of studies I've read suggest that, GENERALLY speaking, children who are product of married parents tend to make more rounded citizens than those whose parents are separated/divorced, in terms of how long they remain in education, salary level, likelihood of spending time in prison etc. Therefore, couples who intend to marry in order to establish a stable foundation for the production of children should be incentivised by the state to do so (tax/inheritance benefits). It's in society's interests.

This ties in with the time-honoured definition of marriage being a union between a man and a woman, essentially because they represent the two components required for sexual reproduction. A same-sex couple represents one component only. In terms of entitlement to legally marry, this is not the same as a hetero couple who choose not to have children or are unable to do so for some physiological reason. Put simply, a same-sex couple has zero potential for producing a family therefore has no legal justification for marrying. Acquiring children by arranging for someone outside the relationship to provide the opposite sexual component required, so that one partner becomes a biological parent and the other is entitled to legally adopt the child, is a practice I would question the ethics of. It seems to wilfully deny a child its other biological parent.

I am not opposed to same-sex relationships per se but I draw the line at marriage. In my view, that can only ever be defined as a union between a man and a woman. It simply isn't a discrimination or equalities issue.

1.producing a child is over rated. Orphanages are full,adopt a child
2."It seems to wilfully deny a child its other biological parent." so does a single mom/dad Drinking Beverage
3." In my view, that can only ever be defined as a union between a man and a woman. " yes. YOUR view. What gives you the right to impose your view on something that doesnt affect you or the society in a negative way?
And based on what do you give that definition?
4." It simply isn't a discrimination or equalities issue." yes,it is discrimination. You want to withhold a human right from some1 who is homosexual,while homosexuality is a morally neutral issue

I don't really like going outside.
It's too damn "peopley" out there....
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-01-2014, 03:07 PM
RE: Am I the only atheist opposed to same-sex marriage?
[

And there goes my next reply.

To stop "redefining marriage" as it were, the definition should be updated to:

The legal status, condition, or relationship that results from a contract by which two individuals, who have the capacity to enter into such an agreement, mutually promise to live together in the relationship of spouses in law for life, or until the legal termination of the relationship.

-please note this is only changing eight words from the currently accepted legal definition.
[/quote]
So what's the currently accepted legal definition?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: