Debate Mansion
Debate Mansion
Debate Mansion

India-Forums

   

SEXUALITY debate: Why can't people live their life (Page 5)

Beyond_the_Veil IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 12 February 2008
Posts: 11596

Posted: 02 December 2011 at 12:14pm | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

The following 3 member(s) liked the above post:

aanyakunatSmritiKatha-Chandramukhi-

Beyond_the_Veil IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 12 February 2008
Posts: 11596

Posted: 02 December 2011 at 12:49pm | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

The following 3 member(s) liked the above post:

aanyakunatSmritiKatha-Chandramukhi-

TheUltimate Senior Member
TheUltimate
TheUltimate

Joined: 19 July 2010
Posts: 788

Posted: 02 December 2011 at 3:12pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by pinkfreud

Originally posted by TheUltimate

I am not against gays. Gay marriages is very debatable. I am ok them calling their union a marriage as long as it is not affecting the "traditional" marriage definition.


And how will two homosexuals, bisexuals, trannys, or hermies getting married affect the 'traditional' marriage definition? In fact, I believe this will only expand the marriage definition and make it more dynamic and fluid. Is this something to do with the fear of unions between men and women becoming quote unquote, 'extinct'?

Actually, scratch that- what is the traditional marriage definition anyway?

My views here may be inflammatory to some, but here goes. Marriage in itself is a man-made construct. They are not made in heaven, unlike what fairytale spinners who live in a candy floss world where unicorns play kabaddi and peacocks serve you tea would have you believe.

I am strictly talking about marriage here, not about relationships. In fact, I am a firm believer in the soul predetermining who its romantic partner/s may be in a certain lifetime. I am a die-hard lover of love and am not against the idea of getting married myself. What I am against, is the notion that marriage is the be-all and end-all of one's love life; like a stamp of approval of a relationship.

Marriage is actually a legally binding agreement between two individuals mainly for (1) protecting their gene pools, and (2) handling properties and assets. Ancient Talmudic/Hebrew law even went to the extent of stating that a man must marry his brother's widow in order to provide the resources required for her to live her life and secure the well-being of her offspring.

However, that is not to say that a marriage is supposed to be completely devoid of love; of course not, I'd be brutally cynical to believe otherwise. What I am saying here, is that marriage, being a legally binding agreement between two adults, should be permitted for people of all orientations.

If two gay/bi/transgender people in love would like to manage or share their respective assets with one another, I do not see why it should be disallowed. In fact, preventing queers from getting married is a violation of the fundamental human right to be recognized everywhere you go as a person before the law. Not to mention a violation of free will, but hey, free will is being stomped on everywhere you look.

And as for the OP's point about letting queers be- I don't get the hoo-haa queerphobia either. What two consenting people (or more, heh) do in their bedroom is nobody's business. They have a right to privacy.

I think what shocks most folks is the thought of gay/bi men and women or the in-betweens getting it on more than anything else LOL People are too accustomed to the thought of plugging the wires in the traditional sockets.
 
And who said it would affect the traditional marriages? Not me.
 
The basic premise of a marriage between a man and a woman is the reproduction - having kids. Gay couples cannot have that. Since the purpose of the marriage is having kids and management of heirdom, it is going to require heck lot of spinning on the gay community's part to redefine the marriage. Again - why must it be called a marriage is the question.
 
Thanks - because you seem to have a basic concept of marriage and logical reason behind it.

The following 1 member(s) liked the above post:

Omnipotent_Taco

Rehanism IF-Dazzler
Rehanism
Rehanism

Joined: 07 August 2010
Posts: 3463

Posted: 02 December 2011 at 8:02pm | IP Logged
I don't think goal of a marriage is to have kids. Marriage is a union of two humans who wish to spend their life together. As simple as that. Many heterosexual couples too cannot conceive but that doesn't mean theirs is a failed marriage!! And, unlike most other animals, human beings do not mate only for reproduction.

The following 4 member(s) liked the above post:

Omnipotent_TacoaanyakunatSmritiKatha-Chandramukhi-

Omnipotent_Taco Goldie
Omnipotent_Taco
Omnipotent_Taco

Joined: 25 October 2010
Posts: 2016

Posted: 02 December 2011 at 8:27pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by TheUltimate

And who said it would affect the traditional marriages? Not me.
 
The basic premise of a marriage between a man and a woman is the reproduction - having kids. Gay couples cannot have that. Since the purpose of the marriage is having kids and management of heirdom, it is going to require heck lot of spinning on the gay community's part to redefine the marriage. Again - why must it be called a marriage is the question.
 
Thanks - because you seem to have a basic concept of marriage and logical reason behind it.


Oh alright then, I deduced that's what you meant since you said 'as long as it doesn't affect traditional marriages' or something along those lines.

Though I really disagree with the notion that marriage is a precursor for having kids. The 'purpose' of having children bit is a very general view of things. That indirectly indicates that the union between two people is solely for procreational purposes. It may have been so in the bygone eras, but it doesn't hold fort today.

What about yuppies or couples who do not wish to have children? I have a serious problem with the traditional mentality that married couples are expected to have children.

As for queer couples being unable to bear children- they can always adopt, but even that is a huge hurdle in today's times. There are so many children in the world today who are either orphaned or given up for adoption for various reasons. I for one believe adoption is a noble deed.


Edited by pinkfreud - 02 December 2011 at 8:28pm

The following 2 member(s) liked the above post:

aanyakunat-Chandramukhi-

return_to_hades IF-Sizzlerz
return_to_hades
return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006
Posts: 22055

Posted: 02 December 2011 at 11:23pm | IP Logged
Since the discussion went into family, this video is doing the popular rounds in the USA.


-Believe- IF-Stunnerz
-Believe-
-Believe-

Joined: 03 December 2005
Posts: 27157

Posted: 02 December 2011 at 11:38pm | IP Logged
 
Nothing against anyones free will...but I know here I didnt find any solid argument against homosexuality...& am not expecting the Straight thoughts too, but its nothing about "good" vs. "bad"; "right" vs. "wrong"; or "saved" vs. "sinner"...& Its nothing about religion or my thought based on reproduction for survival of the species, and societies...If they stick to themselves and don't "demand equal rights" then I'm okay with them...But just like any other "group", there is always a small amount of individuals who ruin it for the majority... no probs...'Do what you want, with whomever you want...'
 
If you act normal, the rest of society will treat you normal.If you act like a fking faggot (excuse me) then the rest of society will treat you like one...Smile


Edited by Prometeus - 03 December 2011 at 2:54am
zorrro Goldie
zorrro
zorrro

Joined: 29 July 2008
Posts: 2373

Posted: 03 December 2011 at 2:42am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Rehanism

I don't think goal of a marriage is to have kids. Marriage is a union of two humans who wish to spend their life together. As simple as that. Many heterosexual couples too cannot conceive but that doesn't mean theirs is a failed marriage!! And, unlike most other animals, human beings do not mate only for reproduction.
Marriage is not necessary for people to spend their lives together. We had enough discussion on this in an earlier thread on live in partners. From what I understood there marriage is mainly for social or legal acceptance, or even for inheritance of property  as someone had suggestedWacko 
Children are not the only reason but they are still  an important reason.
How do we know why animals mate? Reproduction might  be a byproduct of their mating without intention. 
 

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Author Replies Views Last Post
The Cyber Culture Discussion/Debate

2

Author: return_to_hades   Replies: 15   Views: 1580

return_to_hades 15 1580 01 July 2010 at 4:39pm by the_Naked_face
Debate Contest (COMPLETED)

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 32 33

Author: return_to_hades   Replies: 256   Views: 14516

return_to_hades 256 14516 28 June 2010 at 8:13am by return_to_hades
Debate Contest Winners

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 18 19

Author: return_to_hades   Replies: 149   Views: 10219

return_to_hades 149 10219 23 June 2010 at 9:41pm by krystal_watz
Artificial life abroad Vs life in India?

2 3 4

Author: raj5000   Replies: 28   Views: 6769

raj5000 28 6769 10 July 2007 at 3:11pm by Gauri_3
Home life or Hostel life

2

Author: Swapna-Mobile   Replies: 14   Views: 7161

Swapna-Mobile 14 7161 06 February 2007 at 1:36am by realitybites

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category / Channels
Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.

Popular Channels :
Star Plus | Zee TV | Sony TV | Colors TV | SAB TV | Life OK

Quick Links :
Top 100 TV Celebrities | Top 100 Bollywood Celebs | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Forum Index