I thought marriage was just one of the ways to create a familial bond between two individual is (incest ofc would be an exemption). Family is the core of the notion of marriage, which has obviously been acknowledged in almost, if not, everyone's posts here. I personally support same sex marriage, because, as what others have mentioned before, it doesn't harm me in any shape or form while simultaneously, among many other things, further equality.
I skimmed through the posts so I don't know if someone's said this before, but the English language, having been used in a patriarchal dominated society for so long, is very bias in its meaning. What marriage was intended for, in a patriarchal society (making a mother?/ matriology..?) I don't think should be viewed too seriously in our more gender-equal community today. Especially as the purpose of alot of things have changed - the very definition of a male and female's responsibilities and social role in our society have changed as compared to say a 100 years ago. E.g, it's now starting to become socially acceptable for women to hold jobs stereotypically associated with men.
Me and my little brother are close. I love him very much and support him (and vice versa) and we want to spend the rest of our lives together. just chilling and travelling together etc.
Can we get married?
Excluding incest, most people marry to create a family. While a family is usually regarded to be of two parents and a child, in contemporary society, children do not necessarily have to form the core of a familly, with plenty of couples who choose not to have children nowadays. If same-sex marriage was legalised you could marry your brother. But would you want to be viewed as a couple and shoulder the same expectations of a couple? These people, who are of the same gender and wish to get married, are willing to accept the role of a married couple.
As a male I want to be educated at an all-girls school. Oh wait, it's a school created for the purpose of educating girls, and so the criteria is that you must be a female to join. Discrimination?
But what intentions would you have for joining a female school that is acceptable? What's the difference between all girls schools and other schools based on education? Legalising marriage doesn't harm or insult any parties.
You're missing this point.
You see every reason the "for same-sex marriage" people use, can be applied to any other couple, or group of people. In future marriage will only become redundant once you separate it from its purpose.
But the purpose of marriage, you're arguing, is based upon creating a child. Does that mean that all couples who currently do not have children, nor are they planning to have children, are defying the purpose of marriage? what about same sex couples who wish to adopt a child or have a child through surrogacy mothers? The purpose of marriage is shifting, as the notion of a family, which marriage is about, is changing.
If 100% of the population was into same sex marriages, we wouldn't have a population at all.
I really doubt that 100% of the population would be into same sex marriages. That's a close to impossible scenario. What you're illustrating is an irrational fear of a possibility which has such a low percentage of realism. That's the equivalent of me saying, "oh. We shouldn't let any asylum seekers in becaue they're all going to steal our jobs, despite their lacking socio and economic status."
They're still valid because they're not producing fatherless children (refer to earlier post), or children without either one of the parents.
I don't comprehend. What makes a same-sex couple more prone to divorcing than any other couple? All marriages carry the risk of divorce. Yes, an ideal family does have two parents, but truely what's the difference between the role of a mother and a father?
Lesbians and gay couples both cannot make children.
It is only possible via male or female sperm contributions.
And why should a child produced through those means be any different from a child who has been produced through traditional means?
I'm still not understanding why homosexual couple's inability to create children should allow us to prohibit them from marriage? That's like saying marriage should be restricted to only fertile couples - which it isn't. Where's the equality in that?
Marriage has existed the way it has for thousands of years for a reason, and that is not being considered by the gay movement.
And yet, feminism has likewise been not considered for thousands of years and that's changing.
Because its not simply about love. It's is a social structure to protect children, by providing both parents.
And you would be providing both parents to a child who has been adopted/ conceived through surrogacy etc, by a same sex couple. The only difference is that both parents have the same gender. You're not denying a child the love/protection/whatever from two parents. Again, what's the difference between a mother and father's role?
