Gay marriage from a different perspective »
Posted By dtowns67 5 months, 1 week ago in StyleIn light of the outrageous ruling in California over gay marriage I've decided to throw my two sense into the ring. The only difference is the perspective I'm coming from. On this issue its really all about the reason states even have marriage to begin with.
Read Full Story at youtube.com »
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 72
-
ranchhandComment removed: User banned.22 Replies
-
anioklyComment removed: User banned.
-
-
0%
dtowns675 months, 1 week ago
yes gay couples can adopt (which is what I assume you mean since gay couples obviously can't have their own children), But that certainly isn't the intended purpose of same-sex marriage. And in fact using a package of incentives to encourage people to partner with those of the same-sex is damaging to the longevity of the state. Is it not?
Reply-
0%
david_nwpa5 months ago
No, it isn't or you certainly have not explained why it is. As for children, they are not the intended purpose of marriage. If they were, then the elderly and the barren could not be married. As for children, it is possible for two lesbians to conceive via in vitro fertilization. It is also possible for gay couples to bring children into a relationship from previous relationships.
That package of incentives as you put it, consists of more than tax breaks. It includes inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, immigration rights, and approximately 1800 additional rights which many are denied at the state and federal levels. It is a lot more than a "package of incentives."
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
lvrofwolves5 months, 1 week ago
Silly me, I always thought, and still do, that 2 people made a commitment to each other because they loved each other. It's the reason I got married, perhaps there are 100s of other reasons people get married, $, power, status, to become a citizen of another country,etc...but seriously it's supposed to be for love. THEN you think about a family, regardless if you want children, have children, can't have children, don't want children...you are still a committed couple who love each other.
What the hell is wrong with that? and why does anyone feel it's their business to dictate who 2 consenting unrelated by blood adults can love? how would you feel if someone, especially the government told you who you could love and have equal rights with? they shouldn't. If you personally feel it's wrong, that's your right, but you have no right to force your belief on anyone else or to keep them from having equal rights. This is America, right?
Reply
-
-
0%
Endoscopy5 months, 1 week ago
I am going to have some people ranting at what I am going to type.
There is NO scientific evidence that homosexuality is anything other than a choice. There is a lot of conjecture but studies have never found a gene disposing one to that.
There are only less that 3% of the population that is homosexual despite the in your face ones that claim 10%. All scientific studies make it at less than 3%. Of that 3% only a fraction wants to have marriage.
This fraction of a percent of the population gets liberals to get very liberal judges to give them rights against what the population wants.
Elementary civics class talk about how the smallest unit of government is the family. This erodes the family values by making family something other that the building block of society. The ancient Greeks understood that marriage and family was sacred even when having homosexual relationships.
Reply-
0%
Endoscopy5 months, 1 week ago
If the ancient Greeks understood this why can't people today understand it. Societies up to today understood it.
Reply -
0%
david_nwpa5 months, 1 week ago
Sorry, but I fail to see how it erodes the family. Being gay is not a disease. It is not spread via contagion. The judges on the court in California were Republicans, so that shoots your theory. As for being gay and wanting marriage rights, the argument is simple. The rights being bestowed are civil rights. As such, they stem from government for the people. The people have ruled, through their courts, that marriage equality is to be the law of the land. For now, that is how it stands. As for no scientific evidence that being gay is choice, is being straight also a choice? Furthermore, why is it gay creatures are found in 450 species apart from humans?
I think I just debunked all your arguments and still have characters to spare except to sink your comment.
Reply -
0%
david_nwpa5 months, 1 week ago
Sorry, but I fail to see how it erodes the family. Being gay is not a disease. It is not spread via contagion. The judges on the court in California were Republicans, so that shoots your theory. As for being gay and wanting marriage rights, the argument is simple. The rights being bestowed are civil rights. As such, they stem from government for the people. The people have ruled, through their courts, that marriage equality is to be the law of the land. For now, that is how it stands. As for no scientific evidence that being gay is choice, is being straight also a choice? Furthermore, why is it gay creatures are found in 450 species apart from humans?
I think I just debunked all your arguments and still have characters to spare except to sink your comment.
For the record, I do not give a damn how many times Propeller posts this comment!
Reply-
0%
Endoscopy5 months, 1 week ago
My point is that it makes marriage something that it was never intended. From the ancient Greeks to today marriage has been a sacred relationship between a man and a woman. In some places more than a single woman. Homosexual marriage was not considered something valid for a reason. Your civil rights talk is just that talk. Our civil rights were defined in the constitution and as the Declaration of Liberty says they come from our creator. This was a Christion nation and until some sick judges have been put in place it has basically been one. Go argue with God.
Talking about aberrant behavior of animals does not make homosexuality for man anything other than a choice.
The strong sexual drive that causes men and woman to be drawn to each other is not a heterosexual condition I guess.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Endoscopy5 months ago
Aw the crybaby is having a tantrum. I'm going to close my eyes. How foolish.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Endoscopy5 months ago
Where do you think the huge sexual drive that people have comes from. It is part and parcel of being human. That also goes for animals.
Just because a small percentage does something else does not make the practice anything other than choice.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Ratskii5 months, 1 week ago
I can't believe that the speaker brings up tired old arguments and calls them a different perspective. If he really believed what he was saying he would be against older people being allowed to marry. He would also be against allowing couples that didn't intend or weren't able to have children to marry. Marriage has changed over the last several hundred years. Women used to be men's property once they married. They weren't allowed to own property or have many other rights that are recognized today. Does that idiot really want to go back to the way things were in the 15th century (for example)?
Reply-
0%
dtowns675 months ago
Thats strange, I don't remember anyone bringing up the history of marriage in that video. And even more shockingly I don't see you giving an explanation for exactly what the purpose of marriage is from the perspective of the state and how that purpose could apply to homosexual couples.
But heres why your objections are wrong: the argument in the video applies to the general idea of gay marriage vs straight marriage from a state perspective. The state has an interest in keeping all heterosexual couples together, as heterosexual couples generally tend to produce offspring. It has no interest in keeping homosexual couples together, as no homosexual couple could produce offspring. Its that simple.
In other words, Marriage is a package of incentives that seeks to raise the likelihood of offspring. Thus it isn't necessary that every single married couple produce children, it is only necessary that the group eligible to marry generally will produce children in greater numbers after marrying
Reply-
0%
david_nwpa5 months ago
However, as I have shown above, gays can produce offspring. Second, being gay is not a proclivity to children. Third, it is not necessary for the state to be interested in creating more births. After all, in the society in which we live, our orphanages are sufficiently full, our foster care system overworked and overcrowded, and our welfare system which tends to children is already at the breaking point. The state has an interest in tending to the rights of all people. Among them in California is the right to wed the person of one's choosing. Having said that, none shall be deprived without due process of law. Gays and lesbians are not separate from that rationale.
Again, there is the pro-argument for gay marriage.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
Mdiar5 months ago
I've heard this argument before. I concede the business of the state within the marriage. However, as David points out above, with all the unwanted children of the world why would you want to reduce the number of families which would potentially adopt? Particularly considering the likelihood of adoption in a homosexual relationship is greater then that of the likelihood in a heterosexual relationship. There is, of course, the possibility of other means of reproduction as well. Can't really agree with the argument.
Reply-
0%
Mdiar5 months ago
Basically if I love a man, and want to marry him, who is that hurting? Lets add on the fact that I would like to have kids some day. Lets also add on that birth control is something very easy to obtain for a heterosexual couple. That allows the heterosexual couple to control whether they have kids or not, along with abortion. This day and age you basically have to want kids to have kids assuming your religious tradition allows the use of birth control. Now, that homosexual couple just needs to take some legal steps to adopt those kids or go through a medical procedure of some sort to have kids. Its just a few more steps to the final form of the family unit that most people expect. Lets add on the most likely way of getting the kids I'd like if I married a man is adoption. That relieves the state of a burden, caring for that child. Same sex marriage is a boon to the state. Let us not forget promiscuity among homosexuals may go down, possibly resulting in less STDs overall.
Reply
-
-
0%
Dicax_Maximus5 months ago
I think that the basic reasoning behind the point of this video is flawed, in the current world. Sure, historically it's accurate (in that marriage was aimed at getting more population for the state/country/religion), but that is simply not the case in todays overpopulated plannet !
Won't sink the story as it's produced some decent comments, ergo, worth posting. As I cannot agree with it's basic premise, can't vote for it either......
Reply-
0%
dtowns675 months ago
Well I would argue that the notion of an overpopulated planet was disproved beck in the 1970s but regardless of that, if whats stated in the video is not the purpose of legal marriage (that is to encourage having children and then raising those children) then what is the purpose of legal marriage? Why do we give out these benefits?
Reply-
0%
Dicax_Maximus5 months ago
dtown67 - This is 2008 - Population approx 6.6 billion. How many (according to the UN to cite but one source) are living BELOW the poverty belt and / or are starving ???
Think BIG figures......
VERY BIG figures.........
As to the purpose of marriage, unless my memory miserves me, "to have and to hold, to cherish above all others, to love for life, in sickness & in health, until death do us part".... Fair translation of what I SPOKE IN A CATHOLIC CHURCH to get married to my wife.... The ONLY part that mentioned the sex of my wife was "Do you take this woman".....
The purpose of marriage, as far as I'm concerned, is to create a stable household that not only PAY's it's taxes, can raise a familly (if so desired) & BE GRANTED certain rights & tax breaks to support said stable household....
Reply
-
-
-
-
0%
Hobe5 months ago
Gay marriage from a different perspective
HoMosexual Parades are wonderful, however, some HoMosexuals who act like carnal Freaks destroy the whole intent and create a Very negative image for the eager media to report.
These HoMosexual Nuts do not care or do not understand the damage they are doing.
Will they ever learn??
Reply-
0%
jdhatl5 months ago
Why are you so interested in them? They are not a threat to you, unless you are a closet gay that hasn't accepted the truth.
Reply
-
-
0%
Harbeas5 months ago
I see there are still some people who still believe that being homosexual is a choice. How utterly absurd. Ask yourself why anyone would choose to be gay! That being said I am still against gay marriages. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a women. I don't want to hear how you are being discriminated or being treated unfairly because of this! In order to be treated unfairly or discriminated against you have to meet all the criteria of marriage and then be denied. the gay couple does NOT meet the criteria of a man and a woman. In-vitro fertilization. Only if a MAN(in the case of two women) or a WOMAN(in the case of two men)become involved can they have children. Animals in the wild practicing homosexuality. They don't stay together, it's more of a novelty.
Reply-
0%
Endoscopy5 months ago
If it is not a choice there would be evidence about how our genes force us that way. They looked very hard for that to PROVE that. They FAILED. That makes it a choice. Like taking drugs, being an alcoholic, etc.
Why do some people become serial killers?
Why are some people obese?
There are some people with mental problems that can be treated with drugs. Why do some of them refuse to take them and end up homeless?
Why do some people do all kinds of behaviours that are bad for them?
Reply
-
-
0%
david_nwpa5 months ago
Just because scientists have yet to find a particular cause for gays and lesbians, does not mean such a genetic link does not exist. Much like other unknowns in the universe, the lack of evidence does not mean that the unknown does not exist.
Reply -
0%
jdhatl5 months ago
Gay people getting married does not threaten you are anyone else, married or not. This is just right wing fear mongering. It is in the state's benefit for gays and lesbians to get married because it helps them have a healthier lifestyle and be more productive citizens. There is no shortage of babies so the state will continue. The guy who made this video is an idiot.
Reply
Add a Comment
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.