Homosexuals and marriage.

Bugger it (no pun intended...), the British media has been full of this homosexuals and should they be allowed to get married business.

Its probably been asked before, but I can't see a thread, so I thought I'd post this up...

So whats your views.
PS no I haven't turned over to the Brown Side of the Force.

 

if they want to get married, i see no reason to stop them.

 

I couldn't care less who gets married. I care more about the government staying the fuck out of people's private lives.

 

Oh and its an anonymous vote.

 

the poll? no it's not. perilless voted for shirtlift and let live.

 

I don't really understand why it's an issue. Its a personal decision. Why should anyone be able to stop a loving couple from getting married?

And anyway why doesn't separation of church and state apply here?

 

does the UK have that?

 

I'm not sure, sorry I didn't specify that I was talking about the US

 

Our politicians dont tend to talk about religion. Unless they're war criminals like Tony Blair doing some pr spin. Or this hideous pig called Anne Widdecombe who claims its in the 10 Commandments to have the unemployed/ working class live eating ground-up stones.

The Church of England is sort of the state religion.. in a way. But no, its very secular usually.

 

I have heard the anti-gay marriage argument regarding this, but I cannot recall it.

 

The way I see it is that marriage had a legal defintion and had legal and religious support. The legal definition was made to support marriage, because it was a precursor to procreation. Which can be hard financially and for other reasons for young people. So the State said "ok you can have financial support and other support eg if the husband gets killed in battle or one of you dies another way".

Likewise, religion supported it because... duh.. thats what religion believes in!

The idea is, its in everyone's interests to have stable families with kids being born and kids being looked after in a stable, drama free environment.

So homosexual cohabitation has nothing in common with this. I mean if I live with a girl/ causually date her, I'm not gonna claim "ahh this is a type of marriage so I want a tax rebate or some compensation if she gets killed". Because its nothing to do with marriage. If there are kids, then its getting closer to marriage, but even then, its NOT a marriage. So why should Adam and Steve have it any differently?

 

procreation may have played a role in the original marriage laws, but at this point unmarried people have kids all the time, and people get married and don't have kids all the time. so if procreation is the only thing it's about, marriage may as well just cease to exist at all.

or else make it automatic upon giving birth, and illegal before that point.

i'm sure gay people living together and casually dating don't want to get married either.

 

I am assuming this is why the topic has been created:

 

Why "original"? Marriage is marriage. All those laws weren't written for
poly-transgender bdsm intergenerational roleplay where the groom-bride dresses as a donkey. People get married with the idea of having kids. Unless they are older/ already have kids( which is very diffferent).

Marriage is also a legal, religious and moral type of commitment. For purposes such as procreation... in most cases. Originally the law forbade remarriage, but it accepts that sometimes things might not work out/ one spouse may die/become a psychonut or whatever. So the law allowed remarriage, as a recognition that the couple weren't ignoring what society benefits from. Thats a pretty different thing to someone saying "ahhh marriage was Adam and Eve for x zillion years, but I demand that its Adam and Steve now".

Old people and people with kids aren't exactly like 2 homosexuals who are doing the exact opposite to what the State/Society originally decided needed support for. If the State doesn't benefit, why should the State/Society support it?
This is the basis of it all.

So there's nothing for em to complain about

 

"original" because it's not really how it is practiced anymore. like i said before, the correlation between marriage and children is not nearly as strong as it used to be.

how are old people who want to get married but won't be having any kids different from gay people who want to get married but won't be having any kids?

 

I say no to marriage and no to adoptions, but poll options are kind of odd, so I'm not going to vote.

 

Marriage is about having a stable platform for kids. Society AND kids AND a male and female benefit. Young people get married with this in mind. Its a basic fact.

Soceity needs kids being born, and it needs a good environment for them.

Older people also get married. But for different reasons. So the State supports it as a "consolation" type thing. One spouse died, one became a serial killer/ nutjob... that sort of thing. Its completely different to two homosexuals who decide AGAINST what Society promotes for Society's benefit.

How does society benefit from Adam and Steve walking down the aisle? It doesn't.

Its like me boning the girl round the corner. Society won't ban it, but its not gonna give me tax breaks or compensation like "widower's allowance" if she's run over by a truck. Why the hell should it?

Its not about putting cameras in every house in the country to check that some hairdresser Adam isn't playing hide the salami with his dance choreographer friend Steve. Its about the question "how does society benefit, so what should society give to support it..?"

Otherwise, everyone could milk the State for some sort of "cohabitation" tax breaks/ payouts and stuff.

 

The no marriage option is number one. Or number 3 - its cohabitation, not marriage. Probably not that complicated.

 

No, I understand that. I just meant you worded it a bit oddly, that's all.

 

It does benefit society, especially economically. Statistically, gay couples are in the higher economical societal bracket when compared to heterosexual couples. The amount of money gay people would be willing to spend on lavish weddings is unbelievable.

Further, heterosexual couples who are sterile still marry despite the fact that they are unable to produce children for the benefit of an already overpopulated world. What do they do? They adopt, or if only one individual in the relationship is sterile, a surrogate is found in order to ensure that the child is blood related.

Studies have shown that children do benefit from a stable, that being an operative word here, male and female parent household. However, studies also overwhelmingly show that children raised in same-sex couple households grow up to be just as healthy and happy as children born to heterosexual couples.

From the infamous words of Peter Griffin: