Question for anti-gay marriage people.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: IGBT
..can I marry my gold fish??

Sorry, but marriage only has meaning between two persons who have a relationship, and if you married your goldfish, only the goldfish is advanced enough for that.

But it's always nice to see you compare a person who is gay to a goldfish, and some people still ask why we say there's boggling, idiotic bigotry in our country against gays?

polygaphobe. Why "two persons"? Aren't you discriminating?
You bet, I don't want you guys dating my pets.

You keep people as pets?
Yeah it's not PC to call them slaves anymore;)

Hint: polygaphobe is about polygamy ;)
DOH. Man I even watch Big Love on HBO, you'd think that I'd know that:confused::laugh:

 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Any single man and single woman can get married to each other after receiving legal authority according the laws of the state where they reside. In no way does this discriminate against Gay people. The real fact is that the laws that protect married people have to do with protections of their off-spring. Laws about marriage go back thousands of years. Why do people who happen to be gay think they have a right to destroy traditions that have survived the centuries?

Is the Family more important or are Gay people more important?
 

Coldkilla

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2004
3,944
0
71
What if you don't have a religion, your not following thousands of years of "tradition"... You could stop going to family reunions with the old grumpy in-laws, thats stopping a tradition. Or how about the tradition to persecute science in the name of "God"? This bible has been proven wrong in a few respects, and people have paid their lives for 'breaking out of the box', like the earth is the center of the universe, or gravity, or other planets...

What if you do not want a family? I'm not gay and have never liked kids, and am 110% sure I don't want them. If it happens, it'll be accidental, which I don't plan on happening.

Not everyone follows these so called "traditions", things change, people change, Gay people have been around since man walked the earth. You cannot stop two people from loving each other, if anyone trys to step inbetween, they will only fight back. This is discrimination. Period.

Equal Rights, apply to all people. If make this exception, what next? Just like you people say "If gay people get married, what next? Goldfish", how ridiculously stupid.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
45,893
32,684
136
Originally posted by: piasabird
Any single man and single woman can get married to each other after receiving legal authority according the laws of the state where they reside. In no way does this discriminate against Gay people. The real fact is that the laws that protect married people have to do with protections of their off-spring. Laws about marriage go back thousands of years. Why do people who happen to be gay think they have a right to destroy traditions that have survived the centuries?

Is the Family more important or are Gay people more important?

As it has been pointed out countess times in this thread, no legal ability to be married and the lack of same sex civil unions in the US arguably comes up against the spirit and law of the US Constitution. The only practical and equitable solution is for the government to remove all references to "marriage" from the laws and restructure into a civil union only system. Marriage would be a process relegated to the various churches to follow based on their beliefs. As a supposedly progressive western nation this is one area we are sadly lagging significantly behind in.

Stop harping on about the valued tradition of marriage. The divorce rate alone in this country should be enough to shut anyone's yap about that. It CLEARLY isn't that highly valued. Period. End of Story.

Gay unions/marriage don't destroy or in any way lessen the value of heterosexual families. If you can produce any hard evidence to the contrary I'd eat my hat, though I'm willing to bet this is a mantra pushed from a pulpit somewhere.

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: piasabird
Is the Family more important or are Gay people more important?

Somebody better tell gay people they aren't allowed to have families.

40something states have already spoken on the issue by amending state constitutions to ban gay marriage, and the rest will probably move to legalize it. So as long as SCOTUS stays the hell out of it, the Reps will lose this issue that was such a great motivator for the base to get out and vote.

Next up, legalizing abortion only for fetuses with a gay gene!

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: gururu2
Originally posted by: Craig234


You don't deserve to be taken seriously at all, with your level of ignorance on the biology.

Can you even define the word 'naturally' in a biological context at all? Can you apply it to homosexuals in any meaningful way? Of course not.


I'll fix your quote:

IMO, the rightful debate is how we decide to act on our bigoted instincts. if we follow them, we deny incorporating gay partnerships into society. if we suppress them, we allow it.

you take things very personally. its hard to maintain an objective viewpoint IMO when you write and think angrily.

males don't have vaginas. can the use of the word 'natural' be any simpler?

It's not about taking things personally - don't hide from the issue behind that. There's no lack of objectivity in my views.

So, males don't have vaginas.

Now, can you actually reason that out to be relevant? I have my doubts, but let me try to help.

So, *any marriage* which is not about pro-creating, is not a legitimate marriage, right? The only meaning relevant to your men and vaginas fact (putting aside the small number of people who are mismatched with their bodies by gender) would be the issue that the lack of a vagina prevents their conceiving children.

So, of what relevance is the vagina of a 70 year old woman who can't conceive? Of a 30 year old woman who had a hysterectomy and can't conceive? No marriages for them?

And what part of, say, about 5% of the human race being born different on sexual orientation being *natural* is hard for you? The word is simple - but you get it wrong.

It is a *natural* occurance that people are born that way. How they are treated by society - burned alive, banned from marriage, jailed - that's not 'natural'. Homosexuality is natural.

If it's not natural, why don't you point me to the man-made cause of it? To the evidence that the millions of gay people who say they did not choose it are lying? To the evidence contradicting the countless studies, such as those which find that certain characteristics in 5 year olds have an extremely accurate of predicting homosexuality?

Give me a break, you are not having any rational interaction in this thread, just spewing ignorance.

While I agree with your conclusions, I think your "natural" counter-argument misses the point that the other side usualy tries to make which is that only a man and woman have even the possibility of procreation. I'm not talking about reasons to allow marriage, merely talking about whether or not homosexuality is "unnatural." The reasoning goes, a hetero couple is a necessary precondition to reproduction, i.e. a gay couple can never reproduce and as such is "unnatural."

The whole thing is ridiculous since gays are people and people are natural so saying any behavior is unnatural is a distinction without a difference. Even plastic is natural since man makes it and we are of nature. Labeling things as unnatural is a waste of time. Some animal species canibalize their young. Unnatural? There is probably a reason for homosexuality, and maybe traits that go along with it are necessary in the human genome, who knows. Maybe it's there because straight people have horrible fashion sense.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: gururu2
Originally posted by: BradAtWork

So you're saying it's not fine?

How sick can you be to deny a couple the right to IVF? The fact that they're sterile has no effect on their ability to be good parents.

lmao. stick to your beliefs, i'll stick to mine. i'm not trying to convert you, why are you trying to convert me.

i'm ok with gay marriage, but agree with the religious establishment that it is unholy.
i'm against gay parents adopting children because I believe it is unnatural.

enough said.

A good reason to be trying to convert you is that your beliefs involve denying gay parents a right to adopt children... so a live and let live stance doesn't work here so well.

Also, I'd argue it isn't so much about allowing a gay couple the "joy" of raising a child as much as it is finding needy children a good home. Are kids better off in group homes or foster care than with a gay couple dedicated to raise them as their own?

It's about the children! :)
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,221
654
126
Originally posted by: piasabird
Any single man and single woman can get married to each other after receiving legal authority according the laws of the state where they reside. In no way does this discriminate against Gay people. The real fact is that the laws that protect married people have to do with protections of their off-spring. Laws about marriage go back thousands of years. Why do people who happen to be gay think they have a right to destroy traditions that have survived the centuries?

Is the Family more important or are Gay people more important?

How does gay people getting married harm "the Family" in any way?

Changing laws that might be unfair is "destroying traditions"?

Nice try.
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Anything else is not marriage. You must have a different dictionary that I do.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: piasabird
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Anything else is not marriage. You must have a different dictionary that I do.

Are you using Robertson-Falwell? I never liked that one much.

Merriam-Webster:
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

 

Nebor

Lifer
Jun 24, 2003
29,582
11
76
I just don't understand the opposition to it. There is no way you can argue against it without wanting to government to impose your religion or belief on others. It's not hurting you AT ALL.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,432
1
81
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: Craig234
You may come to a more general idea of marriage that it's about allowing two people who love one another to have the societal recognition of their partnership, the right to be 'a couple' formally - and you might realize that making some people use a 'special word' for it defeats the whole purpose; imaging if we said black people had to use a different word for their marriages, but claimed it wasn't a second-class thing, it's just that we want our word for white marriages. That analogy might help you see the discrimination involved.

(And yes, there is an issue in our history following slavery where this sort of debate occurred.)

Your definition was spot on, however where I stop is when you change "two people" to "two people of the same sex". Once you do that, we've broken nature and we've broken a few thousand years of tradition/understanding...

So don't change it. If a marriage is defined as being between two people, straight people can marry and gay people can marry. No one is advocating changing the wording to "two people of the same sex" (which would eliminate the ability of straight people to marry... what a lark that would be).

I maintain that the government should stay completely out of the marriage business. There should be no state sanctioning of marriage or civil unions of any kind. Suddenly it's a matter left to individual churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, etc. Private institutions have a greater ability to engage in bigoted practices because they are private institutions; the government has no business engaging in bigotry as the government exists to protect the rights of all its citizens equally.

The problem with having the government involved in marriage or civil union is that you are always going to run into exceptions. The government decided long ago that it would only recognize marriage between two individuals. This came as a blow to Mormons, who engaged in polygamous relationships, which were now no longer recognized by the state. There are still couples who engage in polyamorous relationships; what rationale is there for preventing their rights to marry multiple partners? Tradition? Difficulty in trying to keep all that sorted out with wills and contracts and whatnot? It's not natural?

That's the inherent problem with marriage. Human sexuality is not confined to one man, one woman. There is a vast contiuum of options out there, from people who remain virgins their whole life to people with the sexual proclivities of Wilt Chamberlain. There are those who jump between monogamous relationships, and there are those who can have multiple committed partners simultaneously. There are those who are attracted to members of the same sex, there are those who are attracted to members of the opposite sex, there are those who are attracted to both, or neither. As long as people aren't harming anyone (bestiality, sex with minors, rape, and all other sex without legal consent), consenting adults should be free to love whoever they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason they want. It's not the government's job to impose a Judeochristian morality over human sexuality.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,221
654
126
Originally posted by: piasabird
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Anything else is not marriage. You must have a different dictionary that I do.

Marriage can never change? Doing so would destroy families?

Sorry, but all you are doing is spouting definitions, not giving LOGICAL REASONS why your definition of marriage cannot change.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
Originally posted by: chucky2
Originally posted by: Craig234
You may come to a more general idea of marriage that it's about allowing two people who love one another to have the societal recognition of their partnership, the right to be 'a couple' formally - and you might realize that making some people use a 'special word' for it defeats the whole purpose; imaging if we said black people had to use a different word for their marriages, but claimed it wasn't a second-class thing, it's just that we want our word for white marriages. That analogy might help you see the discrimination involved.

(And yes, there is an issue in our history following slavery where this sort of debate occurred.)

Your definition was spot on, however where I stop is when you change "two people" to "two people of the same sex". Once you do that, we've broken nature and we've broken a few thousand years of tradition/understanding...

So don't change it. If a marriage is defined as being between two people, straight people can marry and gay people can marry. No one is advocating changing the wording to "two people of the same sex" (which would eliminate the ability of straight people to marry... what a lark that would be).

I maintain that the government should stay completely out of the marriage business. There should be no state sanctioning of marriage or civil unions of any kind. Suddenly it's a matter left to individual churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, etc. Private institutions have a greater ability to engage in bigoted practices because they are private institutions; the government has no business engaging in bigotry as the government exists to protect the rights of all its citizens equally.

The problem with having the government involved in marriage or civil union is that you are always going to run into exceptions. The government decided long ago that it would only recognize marriage between two individuals. This came as a blow to Mormons, who engaged in polygamous relationships, which were now no longer recognized by the state. There are still couples who engage in polyamorous relationships; what rationale is there for preventing their rights to marry multiple partners? Tradition? Difficulty in trying to keep all that sorted out with wills and contracts and whatnot? It's not natural?

That's the inherent problem with marriage. Human sexuality is not confined to one man, one woman. There is a vast contiuum of options out there, from people who remain virgins their whole life to people with the sexual proclivities of Wilt Chamberlain. There are those who jump between monogamous relationships, and there are those who can have multiple committed partners simultaneously. There are those who are attracted to members of the same sex, there are those who are attracted to members of the opposite sex, there are those who are attracted to both, or neither. As long as people aren't harming anyone (bestiality, sex with minors, rape, and all other sex without legal consent), consenting adults should be free to love whoever they want, whenever they want, for whatever reason they want. It's not the government's job to impose a Judeochristian morality over human sexuality.

The gov't cannot be excluded from recognizing civil unions/marriages, and I'm referring to the contract aspect, not religious. The union does not exist in a vacuum, but is incorporated into way too many other laws to simply abolish. Intestacy, standing to sue, insurance, etc. Some type of marriage relationship must be state recognized b/c starting our laws over without such recognition isn't going to happen. Maybe it would have been better if the state had never gotten involved in the personal relationship business, but we don't live in that alternate universe.
 

SwiftWind

Platinum Member
Sep 27, 2004
2,583
20
91
I have to agree with the OP. Don't tell me how to live my life, and I won't tell you how to live yours.

People who think that others should be forced to live by their values because they think they know better should take a long hard look at terrorism...see any similarities?

We're supposed to be a free country!
 

manowar821

Diamond Member
Mar 1, 2007
6,063
0
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
Any single man and single woman can get married to each other after receiving legal authority according the laws of the state where they reside. In no way does this discriminate against Gay people. The real fact is that the laws that protect married people have to do with protections of their off-spring. Laws about marriage go back thousands of years. Why do people who happen to be gay think they have a right to destroy traditions that have survived the centuries?

Is the Family more important or are Gay people more important?

Gays are more important than your skewed idea of what a "family" should be. Fuck tradition, every person deserves the same rights, regardless of if they like dick or vagina.

In regards to your "Marriage is a 'man and a woman'" comment... Alright, so what? Call it something slightly different, but give them exactly the same rights and bonuses that married people get.

How's that sound?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: piasabird
Any single man and single woman can get married to each other after receiving legal authority according the laws of the state where they reside. In no way does this discriminate against Gay people. The real fact is that the laws that protect married people have to do with protections of their off-spring. Laws about marriage go back thousands of years. Why do people who happen to be gay think they have a right to destroy traditions that have survived the centuries?

Sigh. Yes they do discriminate against gay people.

Let me trot out the definitive analogy proving you wrong on this.

Any man and any woman of the same race can get married to each other. In no way does this discriminate against inter-racial couples; each of them can marry someone of the same race.

See the fallacy yet? By limiting the choices for marital partners to people of the opposite gender - or the same race - you discriminate against those who want other partners.

There's no debating it's discrimination - the question is, is it justified discrimination? The answer I think is clearly 'no', but you can try to prove otherwise. You haven't.

Is the Family more important or are Gay people more important?

False dilemma. Gay marriage in no way harms families.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: piasabird
Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Anything else is not marriage. You must have a different dictionary that I do.

Funny, my dictionary includes the definition of marriage now used in Massachusetts - which same-sex marriage. Looks like your dictionary is obsolete.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
348
126
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: gururu2
Originally posted by: Craig234


You don't deserve to be taken seriously at all, with your level of ignorance on the biology.

Can you even define the word 'naturally' in a biological context at all? Can you apply it to homosexuals in any meaningful way? Of course not.


I'll fix your quote:

IMO, the rightful debate is how we decide to act on our bigoted instincts. if we follow them, we deny incorporating gay partnerships into society. if we suppress them, we allow it.

you take things very personally. its hard to maintain an objective viewpoint IMO when you write and think angrily.

males don't have vaginas. can the use of the word 'natural' be any simpler?

It's not about taking things personally - don't hide from the issue behind that. There's no lack of objectivity in my views.

So, males don't have vaginas.

Now, can you actually reason that out to be relevant? I have my doubts, but let me try to help.

So, *any marriage* which is not about pro-creating, is not a legitimate marriage, right? The only meaning relevant to your men and vaginas fact (putting aside the small number of people who are mismatched with their bodies by gender) would be the issue that the lack of a vagina prevents their conceiving children.

So, of what relevance is the vagina of a 70 year old woman who can't conceive? Of a 30 year old woman who had a hysterectomy and can't conceive? No marriages for them?

And what part of, say, about 5% of the human race being born different on sexual orientation being *natural* is hard for you? The word is simple - but you get it wrong.

It is a *natural* occurance that people are born that way. How they are treated by society - burned alive, banned from marriage, jailed - that's not 'natural'. Homosexuality is natural.

If it's not natural, why don't you point me to the man-made cause of it? To the evidence that the millions of gay people who say they did not choose it are lying? To the evidence contradicting the countless studies, such as those which find that certain characteristics in 5 year olds have an extremely accurate of predicting homosexuality?

Give me a break, you are not having any rational interaction in this thread, just spewing ignorance.

While I agree with your conclusions, I think your "natural" counter-argument misses the point that the other side usualy tries to make which is that only a man and woman have even the possibility of procreation. I'm not talking about reasons to allow marriage, merely talking about whether or not homosexuality is "unnatural." The reasoning goes, a hetero couple is a necessary precondition to reproduction, i.e. a gay couple can never reproduce and as such is "unnatural."

The whole thing is ridiculous since gays are people and people are natural so saying any behavior is unnatural is a distinction without a difference. Even plastic is natural since man makes it and we are of nature. Labeling things as unnatural is a waste of time. Some animal species canibalize their young. Unnatural? There is probably a reason for homosexuality, and maybe traits that go along with it are necessary in the human genome, who knows. Maybe it's there because straight people have horrible fashion sense.

I understand what you're saying, and you're right to the extent that I'm addressing their error in the use of the natural, rather than what they're trying to convey by the word natural (which, ironically, you do even further by obliterating almost any sense of the word as you define plastic as 'natural').

But I do so because I'm trying to point out to them how they're hinging an opinion on a nonsensical, irrational idea; I address the substance of their issue pretty directly and simply when I point out that this requirement of child-bearing for marriage is only suddenly important to them when it comes to gate, not when the question was two 70 year olds, or two infertile people, or even two people who have chosen not to have children.

I think the fallacy they commit with 'natural' is in thinking that they're somehow defending nature by opposing gay marriage - it 'sounds' like a principled stand, but isn't. Another fallacy is their simple misunderstanding of the biology, where many if not most of them seem to think it's impossible for mother nature to make people who naturally are gay or otherwise not well suited to reproducing. They're wrong, and deflating their soapbox built upon their defense of the human species against extinction from everyone catching The Gay (the biology appear to have a pretty constant percent of people born gay all the time) is part of debunking their fallacies so they can deal with the issue.
 

Nitemare

Lifer
Feb 8, 2001
35,466
3
76
Obligatory...God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve...

I used to be a Conservative Republican, but I see no harm with 2 adults of any gender, race or religion getting hitched. However, gay men demonstrating public display of affection does kind of sicken m. To each his own, though, just don't look.
 

gururu2

Senior member
Oct 14, 2007
686
1
81
Originally posted by: Craig234

I understand what you're saying, and you're right to the extent that I'm addressing their error in the use of the natural, rather than what they're trying to convey by the word ...The Gay (the biology appear to have a pretty constant percent of people born gay all the time) is part of debunking their fallacies so they can deal with the issue.

you can wax philosophical until the sun goes down, but the reality is that your argument won't help men grow vaginas. why don't men grow vaginas? because its not natural.

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
You know, it seems like the large majority of people in this thread don't seem to have a problem with gay marriage, at least not to the point that they'd go out and vote for a state constitutional amendment banning it. Kinda scary that 42 states had enough people so concerned about it that they did just that.
 

gururu2

Senior member
Oct 14, 2007
686
1
81
Originally posted by: sirjonk
You know, it seems like the large majority of people in this thread don't seem to have a problem with gay marriage, at least not to the point that they'd go out and vote for a state constitutional amendment banning it. Kinda scary that 42 states had enough people so concerned about it that they did just that.


well its almost as bad when those who are for it are attacking others who are for it because they don't share the same ideologies.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: gururu2
Originally posted by: sirjonk
You know, it seems like the large majority of people in this thread don't seem to have a problem with gay marriage, at least not to the point that they'd go out and vote for a state constitutional amendment banning it. Kinda scary that 42 states had enough people so concerned about it that they did just that.


well its almost as bad when those who are for it are attacking others who are for it because they don't share the same ideologies.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you don't have any (close) gay friends. Even die hard Cheney came around on this one.
 

gururu2

Senior member
Oct 14, 2007
686
1
81
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: gururu2
Originally posted by: sirjonk
You know, it seems like the large majority of people in this thread don't seem to have a problem with gay marriage, at least not to the point that they'd go out and vote for a state constitutional amendment banning it. Kinda scary that 42 states had enough people so concerned about it that they did just that.


well its almost as bad when those who are for it are attacking others who are for it because they don't share the same ideologies.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess that you don't have any (close) gay friends. Even die hard Cheney came around on this one.

i have had gay friends, but personal feelings cloud objectivity. so what part of me defending gay marriages has led to this assault? :p