Homosexuals and marriage.

plenty of young people don't want kids, yet they still get married. and it's not exactly unheard of for older people to get married for the first time when they're already old. and sterile people also get married. i just don't see how any of these situations benefit society any more than adam and steve getting married.

even in the case of a "consolation" type thing, i don't see what that really does for society, besides potentially allowing for a happier population, which is really the only benefit of any non-reproductive marriage.

 

Not really... I just meant your post was a bit odd, thats all.

 

Old people aren't going against what society benefits from. Thats the difference.

Young people often say they dont want kids. What they mean is "not at the moment". And people don't choose to be sterile.

Society supports marriage and kids because its a mutual benefit situation.
And also one that is potentially difficult for young couples planning/forecasting kids.

 

Since you love to ignore my posts, a repost:

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.

 

plenty of people choose to be sterile. it's called a vasectomy.

so is your argument basically that gay people choose to be gay?

 

Society benefits from more kids, in stable households. Which is what marriages give. Even if its only, for example, to provide revenues to support the elderly.

And consuming resources isn't anything like "benefiting society".
Adam and Eve might earn less for a few years, because Eve works part time because she's looking after the kids. All the more reason for the State/Society to give them some help - over other groups.

And who is it does the studies that claim its ok to have male-male guardians? Homosexuals. Sorry but those "studies" are ridiculous.

Why shouldn't sterile male-female couples marry? Maybe they'll get fertility treatment. maybe they'll be excellent adopters. Society shouldn't punish them for illnesses.

Finally, you say the World is overpopulated. That may be true for the developing World. But Europe, Japan, Russia, N America, all the wealthy areas are suffering greatly from a greying population.ie under-reproducing. infact this will have catastrophic effects if unheeded. This is the belief of basically all economists.

 

Prove it.

 

And they can have a reversal too.
Adam and Steve will be trying for a very long time to conceive kids tho...

Well they don't do it at gunpoint

______________
Its not about "punishing" people. Otherwise everyone would be claiming some type of "alternative poly adult baby marriage" whatever..

I mean is Huggy Bear gonna claim widowers allowance if one of his hoes is gunned down?

 

http://www.usmagazine.com/uploads/a...shs-baby-boy/1295294410_elton-furnish-290.jpg


I rest my case...

Within 5 years, that poor boy will be forced to dress up as Mary-Antoinette playing the piano with a lollipop ...

Anyway..

 

People do not choose their sexuality. People do not wake up one day during puberty with the arduous decision of having to choose between being sexually attracted to either men or women. Besides, anyone who honestly believes that homosexuals choose their sexuality are thinking illogically. After all, why would we consciously choose a difficult journey through life if it was as easy as choice, as you seem to think that it is?

 

You have just crossed the line between semi-coherency to outright idiocy. How can I take you seriously when you are jumping to such blatant ignorant conclusion based upon no proof except your bigotry?

 

Who says so?

Could you find that clause/amendment?
Do you mean there is nothing stopping anybody getting re-married if one side has died?
I know there was: Deceased Wife's Sister's Marriage Act 1907/Deceased Brother's Widow's Marriage Act 1921.
I do not think there is any legislation preventing anybody getting married because they won't/can't have children.
I think you have to separate what is actually within law and what a particular religion believes to be true.
I do appreciate over the centuries the two have inter-mingled (or there have been concessions for one or the other).
Hell, many of the marriage laws were purely so royalty could marry whom ever they so wished - it had nothing to do with us mere mortals.

No it isn't, actually. Otherwise you could argue (using your logic) half the people married should not be.
It's a poor argument used to determine who certain people think are worthy of marriage or not.


Imho, gay couples should be allowed to marry and churches should be allowed to hold the service if they wish but are not forced to do so.
Everything else is personal - for want of a better word - prejudices.
I'm sure there are the finer details of the bill that need to be ironed out, but I don't see why marriage law can't be gender neutral.

 

In the middle ages "hot" was big humungous fat women. Now its Kate Moss. Conditioning affects what people are attracted to. Otherwise, why would the porn industry advertise different things>?

People often make difficult choices, but Society wont always support them.
Its not like gays are locked up in the West.

The other argument is that dioxins etc in the environment are altering hormone balances, and this is causing homosexuality. But many homosexuals want to consider their preferences as a "choice" not something they were born like.

Some people are born to want to do lots of different things. it doesnt automatically follow that society will redefine millenia old concepts and pay out money.

The debate wasn't about banning homosexuality. Its not "antihomsexuality". It was about saying marriage has always had a particular definition, because Society always gained something from it.

There's marraige and there's alternatives to marriage. By definition there's no such thing as "alternaive marriages". Otherwise, everyone could claim some sort of marriage. Like that loon Denis Rodman when he "married" himself.

 

Not a fan of Elton then are we?
http://digilander.libero.it/EltonJohn2002/50_2.JPG


Insults. ignorance, and name calling. I'm impressed
Oh and throw in a bit of bigotry. Like you claiming the world is "overpopulated". Are u suggesting a "human cull" now?

BTW
Elton john is a tantrum throwing idiot who's always used to getting his own way. Tried to buy a baby off a Russian Orthodox family, and effectively said "fuck your religion and its beliefs on the family unit". I think thats pretty bigoted of him.

Why is it some people love free speech, provided its only theirs?

 

The definition of marriage always changes. It was once illegal for interracial couples to marry. Also, before you even go the route which you probably will, the sanctity of marriage will not be destroyed by allowing homosexuals to legally marry just as the world did not erupt in fire and brimstone when interracial couples were able to legally marry. In fact, if anything, it is heterosexual people who have destroyed the sanctity of marriage with their two hour marriages.

 

Maelstrom Hasn't the US (and approx 25 other countries) already 'allowed' 'gay marriage'? It's just the UK hasn't ironed out a bill to 'allow' it to happen here (yet).

 

Not every where here. Only a few states, and that is mainly due to the fact that there should be a separation of church and state in the matter when there clearly is not. I also agree with you in that the church can decide whether it wants to perform same-sex marriages behind its walls, but it has no right to hold sway over the government in outright disallowing same-sex marriages. After all, not everyone gets married in a church or by church clergy. Atheist do not believe in God, and one would logically think that the church would disallow atheist marriage on the grounds that the marriage must be blessed by God. The fact that atheists can get married by a judge or some other ordained individual, without the blessing of God, should be enough to support the legalization of same-sex marriage.

 

Race discrimination has nothing to do with marriage whatsoever. Im amazed u even mention it.

2nd, its not about necessarily "sanctity", its about society standing to gain from a concept that is enshrined in the system, with a zillion laws, benefits and so on, designed to reward the difficulties persevered by married couples. But ultimately, Britain does take its values from the Judeo-Christian system. Even non-religious people agree with that.

And yeah, "its all the fault of the straight people", if u say so...

So, remind me, who's the bigot?

 

No, thats the point. The definition has remained the same since the beginning of time.


Now a million different laws, rules, tax principles, benefits and the like have to be reconsidered. Lawyers will be saying that the whole legal system has been invalidated/ brought into chaos, because no-one will know what the intentions were any more.

 

Fair enough. What I guess I meant was there is nothing stopping a state from doing so if they choose. I know it's probably slightly more complicated. Ok, lets stick with 'not everywhere'. If a state wanted to 'legalise' same sex marriage it could, couldn't it?

'The Church' or 'A religion' won't be able to. I was listening to the debates this afternoon, and the 'religious types' were not really making religious arguments, or were just saying 'I can't vote yes because of my religious beliefs'.
The Bill will accommodate religion rather than religion accommodating the law, imho (if that makes sense).