Let's be honest here anything to do with gays, you hear more about it in the U.K. than anywhere else. They almost push upon you. There is nothing wrong with gay marriage as long as it stays out of the church and this comes from an atheist. Marriage is about two partner's being together and making that commitment legally binding.
Sorry, you're just repeating yourself. How does your heterosexual marriage change by homosexual people being able to marry?
I'm not going to put words in Walle's mouth and he's clearly exercising his right to not answer the question, so let's take a look at how some other people who take similar positions answer the question... There is a whole FAQ here that tries to explain it, but this is basic gist. The core of the argument is that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman and that definition is unchangeable, and that if we let gay people marry then fewer straight people will get married and have kids, or that if the straight people do marry and have kids that they will be worse parents. The reason this whole discussion goes nowhere is that each side is coming to the table with a different set of assumptions about how things work. Many of those opposing gay marriage take their definition of the term as an unchangable article of faith, regardless of their religion, while other who favor some form of gay marriage see that definition as fluid and changable. If you ask each side why they believe what they do the answer on one side is that "it's always been that way" and on the other "because we think this will work better". Neither is a satisfying or remotely scientific answer, but these kinds of fundamental beliefs underlie all human experience.
No, I am asking you to explain your statement. How is your marriage threatened by homosexual people getting married? Seems you can't answer that. You just keep saying: "but if they get married it changes the definition lf marriage". I ask how does that matter? All I'm getting is that you like the definition of marriage as it is, so you don't want it to change. Therefore you wish to deny people their right to marriage because you don't want to have to edit your cognitive constructs. Cthippo is correct. People always resist change in their cognitive constructs (Religion has a whole built-in framework for protecting its constructs from alteration ("It has been ordained it should be so, hence it shall always be so"). There are valid functional reasons for that, but it also lies at the root of a lot of psychological dysfunction and problems. Because the only immutable factor in nature is change, and we have to adapt with it. So many people just have a gut-instinctual resistance against change. It is not rational, and scientifically their fears are often disproved, but that's how they feel, and they just rationalise after the fact. People are fundamentally emotional beings, not rational ones. Walle just likes his definition of marriage. He evidently can't explain why it matters to him, just that it does. And that is enough for him to deny equal rights to a whole group of people and regard them with suspicion and hostility. 't was ever so.
You keep asking the wrong question, that aside, it is interesting that you would say my marriage instead of saying the institution of marriage. Which again, is a union between a man and a woman. As for legal rights and "equality" I have touched upon those in previous posts. With the risk of repeating myself here again, it is not my definition.
OK, so your marriage is not threatened by homosexuals getting married? Good. We can assume that to be the same for other heterosexual marriages? How are you affected if the institution of marriage is redefined?
@Nexxo If we agree that marriage is a union between a man and a woman you will then have to explain to me why this should change to also include homosexual couples. I don't mind you asking me questions but I think we should start at the right end.
Why should a marriage be a union between a man and a woman only, and not between a man and a man or a woman and a woman?
I am not the one questioning the definition and institution of marriage wanting it to include homosexual couples here, so I think it falls upon you to answer the question, as I said: I think we should start at the right end. You are free to view this as both an emotional yet rational response, if you will.
I see no reason why marriage should exclude same-sex relationships. I see no reason why definitions cannot change. Therefore I see no reason why homosexual couples could not get married. I see no reason to deny a group of people something that I have and experience as wonderful, when they want that also and when I see it do absolutely no harm to anybody for them to have it. You obviously do see reasons why marriage should exclude same-sex relationships, why definitions cannot change and why homosexual couples cannot get married, otherwise you wouldn't object. So I would like you to explain those reasons, because I can't see any.
Because we, hopefully, live in societies where we believe individuals should be given equal opportunities and entitlements under the law, regardless of their differences. We shouldn't discriminate against groups of individuals because of things like their sexual orientation, which is what we're doing by saying that you have to be straight in order to get married. So now that's answered, how about you finally answer why it shouldn't be changed? Other than a marriage for a gay couple being between a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, what would be different? What serious harm would be caused to 'marriage' by allowing gay couples to marry that means we should continue to discriminate against them?
I honestly can't see any reason why they should be excluded other than to annoy the religious folk who see marriage as something between a man and woman and God, which gives me much joy. If homosexuals want to be married, I'm really struggling to see the harm it can do? And walle, you obviously have reasons they shouldn't be allowed to be married, enlighten us.
Lots of things were once unacceptable in religion but times change so I see no reason why this cannot change too.
@Krazeh As for legal rights and "equality" I have touched upon this in previous posts, so... You are wrong when you say it is discrimination to exclude homosexual couples from the institution of marriage. What you are doing here is to allow one group to impose itself onto another group whilst you sell it to the public as if the discrimination would be the other way around. Hats off well played I guess. Nexxo asked me before where the progressive left came into play so I might as well expand on that just a bit. What we see here is typical for the mindset of the progressive left, everything they do comes from a place of emotion and reaction, from a place of imposition and a feeling of knowing what is best for people. This is the reason arbitrary laws are pushed through without any real thought given to the unintended consequences of such laws for instance. A criminal commits a crime and they punish the law abiding citizen as punishment. They twist things around. They turn everything on its head. The issue of marriage is just another one of those examples of how this expresses itself. It is almost as if they have embarked on a "de-socialization" and elimination of any and all cultural norms, this, intended or not, results in the destruction of the traditional family, lowering of standards in most fields, decriminalization of any and all vices, et cetera et cetera the list do get rather extensive in the end.
How does changing the definition of marriage to include same-sex relationships destroy the family, lower standards (what standards?) and/or decriminalise vices (what vices)?
