What is it about heterosexual marriage that makes it so much more special than homosexual?

[gambit]

?

[Arch-hereticK]

Cause GAAAWWWWD says so.

[gambit]

God my old nemesis

[MaximiIian]

The possibility for the partners to breed with themselves.
But that's about it. In any case, there's no reason a homosexual couple cannot adopt children. Heck, they can have kids through a proxy; so, the breeding thing is only limited when it comes to themselves.

But, using that as a reason to prevent homosexuals marrying other homosexuals assumes marriage is entirely for a family-creating experience.
This is no longer the case in reality.

[gambit]

The possibility for the partners to breed with themselves.
But that's about it. In any case, there's no reason a homosexual couple cannot adopt children. Heck, they can have kids through a proxy; so, the breeding thing is only limited when it comes to themselves.

But, using that as a reason to prevent homosexuals marrying other homosexuals assumes marriage is entirely for a family-creating experience.
This is no longer the case in reality.

mm i agree completely, in our day and age where we're not in any dire need of reproduction, adoption agencies are overflowing and artificial insemination is available to anyone, it just seems to be a dying tradition.

[Arch-hereticK]

Like in Southpark when there was a guy whos wife couldn't have children so they were immediately labeled as a homosexual couple (in not so polite wording)

[bleach]

But, using that as a reason to prevent homosexuals marrying other homosexuals assumes marriage is entirely for a family-creating experience.
This is no longer the case in reality.

Without the children exactly what is the point of marriage?

Do you really think any society would care to give special rights to people for being in love if it wasn't encouragement for them to rear the next gen in stable nuclear families?

Because that is the real reason heterosexual marriages are important. What homosexual couples precisely cannot do. And yes it is 'God's' fault but not because a religion says so...

[Lord of Lost Socks]

Without the children exactly what is the point of marriage?

Do you really think any society would care to give special rights to people for being in love if it wasn't encouragement for them to rear the next gen in stable nuclear families?

Because that is the real reason heterosexual marriages are important. What homosexual couples precisely cannot do. And yes it is 'God's' fault but not because a religion says so...

Adoption?

[MaximiIian]

Without the children exactly what is the point of marriage?

A legal contract incorporating two individuals.
Some people get married to have families, yes. But some (probably most, nowdays) people do it for love. Some others do it for economic necessity.

Marriage, as I said, is not limited to family-making. Nor should it be.
And even if it was, homosexual couples can still make (via proxies) and raise (via adoption) children.

[Helm]

I suppose homosexuals have problems in the producing offspring department but we have too many people in the world right now anyway.

[Kamos]

Partly because many people have an unusual urge to want to be married before having children. This I cannot honestly explain.

Anyways as married homosexuals are unable to have their own children they are thus counter productive to society and do not further mankind from a genetic/growth perspective. Or at least that's how it used to be before the modern era. Ultimately this made them dead weight in the past and detrimental to mankind's efforts to grow. It was also a very strange thing in a closed minded time, thus the taboo against them was created and has been carried on to this day.

These days society and technology are advanced enough to where it is no longer important and people are more open minded to new ideas. So social acceptance has begun but will take time to abandon it's roots from a time in which society was unable to sustain such losses.

Of course this is from a sheer technical perspective.

[gambit]

Partly because many people have an unusual urge to want to be married before having children. This I cannot honestly explain.

Anyways as married homosexuals are unable to have their own children they are thus counter productive to society and do not further mankind from a genetic/growth perspective. Or at least that's how it used to be before the modern era. Ultimately this made them dead weight in the past and detrimental to mankind's efforts to grow. It was also a very strange thing in a closed minded time, thus the taboo against them was created and has been carried on to this day.

These days society and technology are advanced enough to where it is no longer important and people are more open minded to new ideas. So social acceptance has begun but will take time to abandon it's roots from a time in which society was unable to sustain such losses.

Of course this is from a sheer technical perspective.

This seems most logical to me, makes sense. Hopefully people will catch up with how the modern age should work.

[Monarchist]

I can give many reasons, but let me address the title of this thread first. Despite being for same-sex marriage (I assume), you're already segregating marriage into two halves: hetero and homo. If you truly believe that they're equal why didn't you name this thread "What is it about marriage that makes it special enough to exclude homosexuals?", or something to that effect? I'm not assuming that you did it on purpose, of course, but semantics are important. It's not gay marriage and straight marriage; either you have marriage, or you don't.

That leads me right to the first point: marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. It has always been a thing of faith; before the Catholic Church officialized marriages in the 12th century, a man and a woman who wished to be married still bore themselves before God. They asked God to bless their matrimony, and the father of the husband-to-be in particular was to ask God for His blessing. This was the tradition that was taken into the Roman Church around the time of Francis of Assisi. The fact that it has always been in recognition of God's power doesn't really mean anything if you're an atheist, of course, but I'm just establishing the tradition.

The most important argument, for me, not to give marriage to gays is this: it requires gay sex to happen. Marriage, legally defined, is a contract that must be consummated in order for it to be legitimate. Consummation requires erect penile action, and an open and willing vagina. If not consummated, traditionally a marriage can be invalidated at all times. There are records from the A.D. 1000's of men who had erectile disfunction being forced to divorce their wives and give the dowry back. This has nothing to do with religion; it's simply a contractual obligation. All marriages in American law and European civil law require this. Unless you remove consummation from the laws, religious institutions which perform marriage ceremonies wouldn't be able to marry gays. Why? The Qu'ran, Talmud, and Bible generally are interpreted to be against gay sex. Set aside whether you agree or not, and consider the facts. Marriage requires consummation. Consummation is sex. Gay sex is considered a sin in the major religions today. How can Abrahamic religious institutions that follow their own scriptures, the institutions most famously associated with legal marriage, allow gay marriage?

If marriage were given to gays everywhere, there are many churches which would follow this simple logic and say "no". Either you'd have to force all churches, mosques, and synagogues to commit marriages of the same sex (thus violating the precious liberal idea of "separation of church and state"), or you'd have to set up government-run or private-run marriage contract companies. After all that, how would that be any different from civil unions? Whether you like it or not, marriage is almost inextricably linked to places of worship. Until you can change the whole societal consciousness, which immediately sees church bells when it thinks of weddings, it just isn't realistic!

[Playfishpaste]

I wonder what christians think of fellow christians who get married but don't have children.

"UR DOIN IT WRONG."

[Arch-hereticK]

Marriage has nothing to do with religion neccessarily.
A marriage has more legal rights than a civil union.



(and also lol @ "Consummation requires erect penile action, and an open and willing vagina.")

[gambit]

I can give many reasons, but let me address the title of this thread first. Despite being for same-sex marriage (I assume), you're already segregating marriage into two halves: hetero and homo. If you truly believe that they're equal why didn't you name this thread "What is it about marriage that makes it special enough to exclude homosexuals?", or something to that effect? I'm not assuming that you did it on purpose, of course, but semantics are important. It's not gay marriage and straight marriage; either you have marriage, or you don't.

semantics arent important. you can assume this means I actually have a deep hidden belief in their inequality, despite me making this thread and generally fighting for them, or you can assume I put that because in this day and age they are considered seperate, by the powers that be, which I am challenging.

That leads me right to the first point: marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. It has always been a thing of faith; before the Catholic Church officialized marriages in the 12th century, a man and a woman who wished to be married still bore themselves before God. They asked God to bless their matrimony, and the father of the husband-to-be in particular was to ask God for His blessing. This was the tradition that was taken into the Roman Church around the time of Francis of Assisi. The fact that it has always been in recognition of God's power doesn't really mean anything if you're an atheist, of course, but I'm just establishing the tradition.

this has always been a terrible argument. change the goddamn definition then, old traditions mean nothing when people are treated inequally.

The most important argument, for me, not to give marriage to gays is this: it requires gay sex to happen. Marriage, legally defined, is a contract that must be consummated in order for it to be legitimate. Consummation requires erect penile action, and an open and willing vagina. If not consummated, traditionally a marriage can be invalidated at all times. There are records from the A.D. 1000's of men who had erectile disfunction being forced to divorce their wives and give the dowry back. This has nothing to do with religion; it's simply a contractual obligation. All marriages in American law and European civil law require this. Unless you remove consummation from the laws, religious institutions which perform marriage ceremonies wouldn't be able to marry gays. Why? The Qu'ran, Talmud, and Bible generally are interpreted to be against gay sex. Set aside whether you agree or not, and consider the facts. Marriage requires consummation. Consummation is sex. Gay sex is considered a sin in the major religions today. How can Abrahamic religious institutions that follow their own scriptures, the institutions most famously associated with legal marriage, allow gay marriage?
If marriage were given to gays everywhere, there are many churches which would follow this simple logic and say "no". Either you'd have to force all churches, mosques, and synagogues to commit marriages of the same sex (thus violating the precious liberal idea of "separation of church and state"), or you'd have to set up government-run or private-run marriage contract companies. After all that, how would that be any different from civil unions? Whether you like it or not, marriage is almost inextricably linked to places of worship. Until you can change the whole societal consciousness, which immediately sees church bells when it thinks of weddings, it just isn't realistic!

making them go with civil union IS seperating them, like you assumed I did up top. Theres no point whatsoever that we cant just change the definition of marriage from between a man and woman to between two lovers, or two consenting parties if you want to get technical. It's a silly argument made by people who simply dont want to compromise on their beliefs a little, when normally I'd say people shouldnt have to compromise on their beliefs, but with people being treated unfairly there comes a time when they should just have to deal with it.

[Monarchist]

It's a silly argument made by people who simply dont want to compromise on their beliefs a little, when normally I'd say people shouldnt have to compromise on their beliefs, but with people being treated unfairly there comes a time when they should just have to deal with it.

Why should I ever want to compromise on my beliefs? I believe in them.

Maybe in 100 years, even the Catholics will.

Here's hoping not!

[Arch-hereticK]

Why should I ever want to compromise on my beliefs? I believe in them.

You should challenge your beliefs, often. Change is inevitable, you will not be the same person your entire life, only the weak never change.

[Monarchist]

You should challenge your beliefs, often. Change is inevitable, you will not be the same person your entire life, only the weak never change.

Nonsense. I can still believe in what I believe in; compromise is different from questioning. I may have questioned my beliefs and come to new ones one day, and the first next day someone will ask me to compromise them. It's easy to challenge my own beliefs, but I refuse to compromise on the ones I have come to believe are absolute. I'll always believe it's wrong to murder people, for example; abortionists would have me compromise.

Gambit, no one's being treated unfairly. Marriage isn't a right. Sod all that.

[gambit]

Why should I ever want to compromise on my beliefs? I believe in them.

see: second half of sentence