Marriage.

[Corvus of the Black Night]

Murder, psychopath, sociopath is a choice. I choose to kill someone. If it was not their fault, why are these people on death row and not at a mental institution under close watch? It is a choice.

What does that have to do with anything? Also, being a psychopath or a sociopath is not a choice since both of those are due to either chemical imbalances in your brain (such as disorders like bipolar, depression, anxiety problems, OCD) or neurological conditions (personality, autism ect.).

If this has anything to do with homosexual marriage, homosexuality isn't a choice because it's not like you have a choice to pick who you find attractive. Did you?

 

[PkmnTrainerElio]

Do you think marriage is important?
Yes, Marriage is something that should happen to people who love eachother dearly.

Do you feel it should be more or less important?
Nope, not at all.

Do you think it is more or less important for same-sex couples compared to heterosexual couples?
Nope, if same-sex marriage is legalized, then well, yes it should be just as important as opposite-sex marriage.

If same-sex marriage is not legalized, why can't the couples live happily unmarried?

 

[BadPokemon]

What does that have to do with anything? Also, being a psychopath or a sociopath is not a choice since both of those are due to either chemical imbalances in your brain (such as disorders like bipolar, depression, anxiety problems, OCD) or neurological conditions (personality, autism ect.).

If this has anything to do with homosexual marriage, homosexuality isn't a choice because it's not like you have a choice to pick who you find attractive. Did you?

Our attraction towards people can change. I felt attracted to my girlfriend, until we broke up. I no longer feel attracted to her. I think we do have a choice with who we find attractive.

 

[Sir Codin]

Our attraction towards people can change. I felt attracted to my girlfriend, until we broke up. I no longer feel attracted to her. I think we do have a choice with who we find attractive.

There's a difference between who you find attractive and what you find attractive. Sexual orientations do not change at the drop of a hat.

 

[Captain Gizmo]

Same sex marriage is such a taboo subject for people but who are we to judge the love between two persons of the same sex? They aren't allowed to love each other and live together just because someone dislikes the idea? It shouldn't be up to other people who has absolutely no business in other people's relationship to tell them that they can't marry each other because it bothers them when it absolutely doesn't impact their life at all while the other couple affects theirs.

 

[Entermaid]

What does that have to do with anything? Also, being a psychopath or a sociopath is not a choice since both of those are due to either chemical imbalances in your brain (such as disorders like bipolar, depression, anxiety problems, OCD) or neurological conditions (personality, autism ect.).

If this has anything to do with homosexual marriage, homosexuality isn't a choice because it's not like you have a choice to pick who you find attractive. Did you?

Exactly this. Natural and inherent qualities exist, of which, have behaviors we don't condone in society, such as psychopathy/sociopathy. Being of one's "Free will", "choice", and "nature" doesn't necessarily define the nature of the behavior, let alone how we should dictate public policy. Both proponents and opponents, are continuing to invoke such lines of reasoning. It's all irrelevant to the discussion.

So, I'd say the whole gay marriage topic has been discussed over and over again (not only in this particular thread); most of us, who have put forth sound arguments, largely agree that same-sex marriage has an abundance of meritable effects upon society, whereas banning same-sex marriage has an abundance of negative consequences. (The only opponent has failed to respond to these points, and the opponent's points have been sufficiently rebutted.)

I think an issue, that I still am not quite sold on either way, is non-citizen immigrant-American citizen marriage policies. I am not sure that I have been convinced either on the many sub-issues involving this topic, perhaps investigation of fraud-marriages and entitlement to U.S. citizenship/benefits (the process and the extent of which). Anyone have any insights to the negative and positive impacts of current policy are?

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

There's a difference between who you find attractive and what you find attractive. Sexual orientations do not change at the drop of a hat.

This is true. And scientists believe that there is actually a scale that people all fall into that actually shows that everyone is at least a little gay and a little straight - it's called the Kinsey scale. Although it's not comprehensive it does illustrate the basics very well. It's pretty clear that BadPokemon rejects anything that is said to disagree with his own viewpoints so trying to argue against his point is like that analogy with the pigeon playing chess.

as someone who is "pretty much straight" I will admit it is pretty funky when I do find a woman attractive lololol

 

[Dakotah]

There's a difference between who you find attractive and what you find attractive. Sexual orientations do not change at the drop of a hat.

No, you're right. Although sexual orientation has in some cases been shown to shift throughout a person's life. What we find attractive can change over time, and sometimes it does in fact seem that it happens at the drop of a hat, only because we're not consciously aware of it happening. It's one of the reason that I believe that human beings are inherently bisexual creatures. At one point in our lives we're attracted to certain people. But at some point this can change. It is especially more fluid in females, as studies have shown, than in men.

I identify as a gay man, and am in a relationship with a very wonderful guy who I've been with for over 4 years. But I would be lying to myself and to others if I didn't admit that there are times that I have looked at a female and found her attractive. There is no desire on my part to be intimate with a woman, as I find the very thought of being with a woman icky, but that I can say a woman is attractive (as opposed to just being pretty, there is a difference) tells me there is more going on inside us humans than just genes being turned on and off in a sequence like a bank of light switches. I've often said that we do not go through life in a black and white world. There are shades of grey that get between either extreme. And this is one of those things I think that involves those shades of grey.

I think who we choose to marry is in large part affected by this duality. In another threat it is being discussed the nature of manhood, or what makes a man a man. But if we truly want to understand ourselves, we need to accept the duality of our natures. Male or female, we all have our masculine side and our feminine side, as the terms are understood in society. In deed, there are some cases where an attraction exists but with no desire for any form of intimacy between the couple, and still the couple gets married. Because whether or not the couple wishes to be intimate with one another, the one thing that brings them together is the shared love they have for each other.

 

[DanZC]

No one has responded to this thread, so I will.

I think, before we delve deeper into this issue (trust me, we could go deeper), we should first ask ourselves: "What is marriage? What is the point of marriage? Why does the government recognize marriages in the first place?" If marriage were a simple piece of paper, then it wouldn't hold much significance.

Ancient Romans reserved marriage for those who beared and raised children. Yes, gay people did have relationships but since they didn't produce offspring, they didn't marry.

I am a devout Catholic who has many gay friends. I don't see them as committing a sin by being gay. It's not a question of being homosexual. I could care less if they had sex with another guy. But when you degrade a thing such as marriage to a simple "Oh I love you, kinda," that is where the meaning of love is degraded. Now, while homosexuality itself isn't immoral, the degradation of marriage is. BadPokemon is right about that.

Don't think of me being homophobic or anything. I disagree with the claim that gay people should not be allowed to love each other. But when it comes to marriage, homosexuality defeats its purpose. What's the point of getting married if the point of marriage is to have children and you physically can't have children? Has the meaning of marriage really degraded to that point?

Marriage isn't some piece of paper that you wave around to get stuff. It's ritual that binds a man and a women to the will to have offspring. God does not hate homosexuals. In fact He loves all of His children the same. But God stuff aside, I believe the meaning of marriage has been skewed to some degree. Think of it, less as a right and more as a ritual.

To sum up, marriage wasn't intended for people who only wanted to be with one another and not have any kids. There are many people that still try to get a marriage and end up old and without kids to support them. To love someone is one thing. To be bonded to them with the will to create offspring is another. Without sex, marriage would simply not exist.

P.S. Alessi_sys mentioned something about Chick-fil-A which I will elaborate. The owner of the franchise simply stated his beliefs. I believe no action has been taken to discriminate against gays. If there has been, then there must have been a HUGE cover-up considering the fact that Chick-fil-A was not flamed for anti-gay propaganda before the owner of the franchise stated his beliefs. Stating something and doing something are different things. I could state that I love eating mushrooms, but if I never actually eat a mushroom, then my point is taken invalid.

...Wow. That was really deep and stuff. Feel free to disagree (because everyone else will).

 

[Keiran]

Don't think of me being homophobic or anything. I disagree with the claim that gay people should not be allowed to love each other. But when it comes to marriage, homosexuality defeats its purpose. What's the point of getting married if the point of marriage is to have children and you physically can't have children? Has the meaning of marriage really degraded to that point?

Marriage isn't some piece of paper that you wave around to get stuff. It's ritual that binds a man and a women to the will to have offspring. God does not hate homosexuals. In fact He loves all of His children the same. But God stuff aside, I believe the meaning of marriage has been skewed to some degree. Think of it, less as a right and more as a ritual. A ritual wouldn't be valid for ALL people.

To sum up, marriage wasn't intended for people who only wanted to be with one another and not have any kids. There are many people that still try to get a marriage and end up old and without kids to support them. To love someone is one thing. To be bonded to them with the will to create offspring is another. Without sex, marriage would simply not exist.

1. There are actual benefits to getting married outside of companionship. Economic benefits, visitation rights, etc.

2. Not every cishet couple wants/needs to have children. Asexual, opposite-gender couples exist as well.

3. Not every couple that can have children together are cishet. E.g., a relationship with a trans person

4. Adoption is an option, so is donor insemination and surrogacy.

 

[Entermaid]

One important function of marriage is child-raising, which helps to stabilize commitment to children/families in the country, but certainly there are other functions.

Homosexual couples should be allowed to marry, based off your criteria; homosexual couples can serve a great function to society by investing time, money, and emotional resources to children without stable families. One must be able to demonstrate that foster care>homosexual couple, at least, to demonstrate that same-sex adoption serves no function to improve.

Spoiler:

Additionally, you have ignored the possibility of other benefits of marriage listed in this thread that bolsters social unification, decreases hyper-partisan politics (which affects all married/unmarried people alike), and ultimately, not having the framework of marriage can have negative outcomes for homosexual, their families, and ultimately society. Heterosexual marriage plays a much broader role than simply children. Imagine a married heterosexual couple without children, is there not an effect on their productivity as citizens? Sure, they get stuff. But a contract to devote yourself to another person, made publicly upholds each person's commitment, stability, and shared duties and expectations among citizens.

This is a brief recapitulation, but you can read through the rest of the thread for several valid benefits, rather than assuming there is only one function of a complex institution. Which, homosexual couples are able to serve that one function listed anyway.

Greninja'd, Keiran, has put it well in a concise form.

 

[DanZC]

One important function of marriage is child-raising, which helps to stabilize commitment to children/families in the country, but certainly there are other functions.

Homosexual couples should be allowed to marry, based off your criteria; homosexual couples can serve a great function to society by investing time, money, and emotional resources to children without stable families. One must be able to demonstrate that foster care>homosexual couple, at least, to demonstrate that same-sex adoption serves no function to improve.

Additionally, you have ignored the possibility of other benefits of marriage listed in this thread that bolsters social unification, decreases hyper-partisan politics (which affects all married/unmarried people alike), and ultimately, not having the framework of marriage can have negative outcomes for homosexual, their families, and ultimately society. Heterosexual marriage plays a much broader role than simply children. Imagine a married heterosexual couple without children, is there not an effect on their productivity as citizens? Sure, they get stuff. But a contract to devote yourself to another person, made publicly upholds each person's commitment, stability, and shared duties and expectations among citizens.

This is a brief recapitulation, but you can read through the rest of the thread for several valid benefits, rather than assuming there is only one function of a complex institution. Which, homosexual couples are able to serve that one function listed anyway.

Greninja'd, Keiran, has put it well in a concise form.

The reason marriage exists is to ensure that the human race can exist. Yes, marriage has other functions, but its main one being creating and raising children. Like I stated, marriage is not a requirement for love. You can easily live with someone and love without being in a marriage. A marriage serves to bind a man and a women to the duty of, and here is where you didn't read carefully, creating and raising children.

The reason governments recognize marriages in the first place is because they encourage procreation. To put it simply, they serve to keep the population alive. Governments could easily get rid of these marital benefits (which is already happening, by the way). Being committed to someone can be a simple "I love you," but creating and raising a child requires a more connective bond, hence why we have marriage.

I am in no way supporting foster care. I think more heterosexuals should be committed to raising children. In recent years, more and more people have decided that they do not want to raise children, which is scary. What's even scarier is the number of kids that are neglected by heterosexual parents. But I think we should be encouraging heterosexual couples who are committed to raising children, to adopt these children.

You bring up a good argument, but homosexual couples only make up about 3.8% of the American population, 1% of the Canadian population, and only 1.5% of the British population. If we did give homosexual couples these children, it wouldn't make much of a difference.

 

[Entermaid]

The reason marriage exists is to ensure that the human race can exist. Yes, marriage has other functions, but its main one being creating and raising children. Like I stated, marriage is not a requirement for love. You can easily live with someone and love without being in a marriage. A marriage serves to bind a man and a women to the duty of, and here is where you didn't read carefully, creating and raising children.

The reason governments recognize marriages in the first place is because they encourage procreation. To put it simply, they serve to keep the population alive. Governments could easily get rid of these marital benefits (which is already happening, by the way). Being committed to someone can be a simple "I love you," but creating and raising a child requires a more connective bond, hence why we have marriage.

I am in no way supporting foster care. I think more heterosexuals should be committed to raising children. In recent years, more and more people have decided that they do not want to raise children, which is scary. What's even scarier is the number of kids that are neglected by heterosexual parents. But I think we should be encouraging heterosexual couples who are committed to raising children, to adopt these children.

You bring up a good argument, but homosexual couples only make up about 3.8% of the American population, 1% of the Canadian population, and only 1.5% of the British population. If we did give homosexual couples these children, it wouldn't make much of a difference.

Your argument doesn't exactly demonstrate both scenarios. Rather it points out an obvious benefit found in BOTH scenarios, and doesn't demonstrate how same-sex marriage policy would affect that benefit negatively. In policy debate there are TWO debates. The status quo (no same-sex marriage) and the new proposal (same-sex marriage). You must list pros and cons of each scenario, and then, you must compare the two sets of pros and cons. You have not yet addressed the new proposal, and why the status quo is the better of the two, since you have not addressed the latter scenario.

Again, you have not acknowledged any other benefits of marriage; the benefit you have listed would be intact either way, and you haven't stated otherwise. You cannot simply state, without showing the work to refute the other points made. Is society better with or without same-sex marriage?

Potentially, assuming that it is a true statistic, 5 million couples. Say only half get married, and only half of those want to and are eligible to adopt, that is over 1 million couples which is adequate enough for several hundreds of thousands of Foster Children. Foster children are costly to the state in several ways.

A) paying for care while in foster care. 2) Paying for incarceration/legal/drug rehabilitation/well-fair assistance as poor statistical outcomes have shown. Incarceration fees can last a lifetime. Giving a home to these children can increase their success and lower the cost of the state tremendously if you multiply the average money that is to be saved per foster child that ages out of system or underage emancipation.

And, marriage binds homosexual couples, to the commitment to adopt children. You haven't defended why creation of a child is a necessary requirement. It is a reason, but how is it the exclusive reason? Your only response is that creation of a child is the original purpose. So? How does that qualify it to be the exclusive purpose and ignore the benefits several members have listed? It doesn't logically follow in the way you have articulated it.

 

[Dakotah]

The reason marriage exists is to ensure that the human race can exist. Yes, marriage has other functions, but its main one being creating and raising children. Like I stated, marriage is not a requirement for love. You can easily live with someone and love without being in a marriage. A marriage serves to bind a man and a women to the duty of, and here is where you didn't read carefully, creating and raising children.

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid your assertion is just plain wrong, from a historical standpoint. Marriage as a concept was (and still is), in its basic form, about property. It's a financial transaction. In ancient times, the primary purpose of a marriage was to bind women to men, and thus guarantee that a man's children were truly his biological heirs. Through marriage, a woman became a man's property. Note that the purpose was not to procreate but rather to ensure the legitimacy of a man's offspring, should any children be born. During these times, men were free to take several wives; married Greeks and Romans were free to satisfy their sexual urges with concubines, prostitutes, and even teenage male lovers, while their wives were required to stay home and tend to the household.

The reason governments recognize marriages in the first place is because they encourage procreation. To put it simply, they serve to keep the population alive. Governments could easily get rid of these marital benefits (which is already happening, by the way). Being committed to someone can be a simple "I love you," but creating and raising a child requires a more connective bond, hence why we have marriage.

This argument fails on its face for the simple reason that no law mandates any couple to have children. Indeed, marriage is not restricted from people who either cannot have children or who do not wish to have children. If marriage was about procreation, as you claim, then surely there would be a stipulation in the laws that would mandate a couple have children. Since such a stipulation does not exist, it is not accurate to claim that the purpose of marriage is procreation.

You bring up a good argument, but homosexual couples only make up about 3.8% of the American population, 1% of the Canadian population, and only 1.5% of the British population. If we did give homosexual couples these children, it wouldn't make much of a difference.

The figures you quote have been dismissed regularly every time they are quoted or re-introduced. And the reason for it is thus: When attempting to gather statistical information on the size of a particular population, it is necessary that everyone answers those questions truthfully. But for the LGBT community there exists many barriers that prevent people from being open about their sexuality. In more than half the states being open about your sexuality could cost you your job and even your home. So to state with any certainty the true size of any population, those barriers have to be made non-existent. Until that time you're never going to get a survey that accurately accounts for every person who is gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender. In Hamilton, Ontario where I live, a city of over 500,000, the LGBT community's own surveys here have estimated that the number of people who are gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender numbers in the 10s of thousands and is closer to about 10% of the population. And even we admit that this number is probably not entirely accurate. There are still a lot of people who are not out and who are afraid to risk outing themselves by answering a survey.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

What's the point of getting married if the point of marriage is to have children and you physically can't have children? Has the meaning of marriage really degraded to that point?

Because maybe people want to get married for reasons beyond having children? Just because in the past this was a commonly accepted reason for it doesn't mean that it should, and marriage is not required for having children. I'm not dissing, but this is the reason why people generally are disagreeing with what BP is saying as a whole.

Marriage is about whatever the hell you want it to be. There's no obligation to make it about having kids, because by your logic you would also imply that women who have reached menopause or infertile couples should be obligated to forfeit their marriage. In modern society marriage is a hella lot more than "making kids" and there are legal requirements and issues that surround it which is why it's not entirely unreasonable to allow two individuals, regardless of their ability to produce children, should have the right to access those legal rights.

 

[AoTora]

Well I don't think that marriage is that important - my grandparents never got married and they are still happy together. Same goes for my parents. However - I do think that it's more important for same-sex couples - because they can prove that they are the same as us "normal" people. Marriage is certainly not a must - I think that if two people love each other and if they want to spend their lives together they can do it with marriage or without it.

 

[MurkMire]

Do you think marriage is important? Not really. I mean, people can be happy without a binding contract that usually results in expensive divorces. Not saying people always do, but to me, I wouldn't get married. Maybe if it was a partner, but maybe not.

Do you feel it should be more or less important? I think it should be less important. Not a lot of people hold up the, "till death do us part," and yadda yadda yadda. Again, I'm not generalizing, it just happens a bit too much. I wouldn't want to be pressured to wanting to be married.

Do you think it is more or less important for same-sex couples compared to heterosexual couples? Same-sex couples absolutely deserve the same treatment heterosexuals do. But, I still stand by my statement. It's not ENTIRELY necessary, but if you want to, what the hay? We all have our own lives, and it's not hurting anyone... right?

 

[Dakotah]

Many of the people who do not think marriage is for them forget a few details that might affect them later on in life. A marriage license isn't simply some piece of paper that declares their commitment to one another, it is also a legal document which, among other things, ensures inheritance rights, visitation rights in hospital and especially recognition as a couple should one or both fall ill when outside of the country and require medical treatment.

A marriage license ensures that a surviving spouse does not get taxed on property inherited by them upon the passing of a spouse. A marriage license ensures that you will receive a spouse's social security benefits upon their passing. A marriage license ensures that should one of them fall ill and require hospitalization that they may have visitation rights and also most importantly have a say in the treatment their spouse should receive.

A lot of people think a marriage license is simply a declaration of love and commitment. But it is so much more than that. To the person who's grandparent's never married. They may be happy now without being married, but when one of them passes on, the survivor is going to be taxed heavily on any inheritance they receive all because they don't have that piece of paper declaring them a married couple. That's something to think about right there.

 

[Sage Ebock]

INSTALLING A HUSBAND

Dear Tech Support,

Last year I upgraded from Boyfriend 5.0 to Husband 1.0 and noticed a distinct slowdown in overall system performance, particularly in the flower and jewelry applications, which operated flawlessly under Boyfriend 5.0. In addition, Husband 1.0 uninstalled many other valuable programs, such as: Romance 9.5 and Personal Attention 6.5, and then installed undesirable programs such as : NBA 5.0, NFL 3.0 and Golf Clubs 4.1 Al so Conversation 8.0 no longer runs, and House cleaning 2.6 simply crashes the system. Please note that I have tried running Nagging 5.3 to fix these problems, but to no avail. What can I do?

Signed,
Desperate

DEAR DESPERATE,

First, keep in mind, Boyfriend 5.0 is an Entertainment Package, while Husband 1.0 is an operating system. Please enter command: ithoughtyoulovedme.html and try to download Tears 6.2 and do not forget to install the Guilt 3.0 update. If that application works as designed, Husband 1.0 should then automatically run the applications Jewelry 2.0 and Flowers 3.5.

However, remember, overuse of the above application can cause Husband 1.0 to default to Grumpy Silence 2.5, Happy Hour 7.0 or Beer 6.1. Please note that Beer 6. 1 is a very bad program that will download the Farting and Snoring Loudly Beta.

Whatever you do, DO NOT, under any circumstances, install Mother-In-Law 1.0 (it runs a virus in the background that will eventually seize control of all your system resources.)

In addition, please do not attempt to re-install the Boyfriend 5.0 program. These are unsupported applications and will crash Husband 1.0.

In summary, Husband 1.0 is a great program, but it does have limited memory and cannot learn new applications quickly. You might consider buying additional software to improve memory and performance. We recommend: Cooking 3.0 and Hot Lingerie 7.7.

Good Luck!

If such a thing as a "winner" existed in this thread, on pokecommunity, in the vastness of the internet, I would believe you are it.

However, because I cannot verify winning in such a discussion, I will say this


YOU BLEW MY WHOLE MIND. I am literally drooling laughter. Thank you. You have most certainly enriched my life.

 

[ratbutcher]

I don't believe marriage is for everybody, and if it isn't for you, I do not recommend it because it is seriously the BIGGEST commitment you could make. Some people need to realize that never getting married is an option. SOme people believe that getting married is the single most important part of their life, (and I agree! As long as it is right for you!) but these people need to stop and asses theirselves and discover if they belong as a spouse.

When I realized this, I made the discovery that I was not fit for marriage. I had certain trust issues that would never go away, and I would need an escape plan at all times. It doesn't mean I'm any less committed to my girlfriend. I don't love her any less. That is what I needed to stay sane. given the opportunity I still wanted to spend my life with her, and make it through tough times.

Since then I have changed and do feel fit for marriage, but if you do not feel fit for marriage then do not lie to yourself. You may just need time to heal, or you might never be happy with the idea of it, but why would you wear a ring the rest of your life that you hate, if you dont need to?