Secular case against gay marriage

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Since the benefits to society from marriage are derived from procreation, let's make it official and ONLY give tax breaks for couples with children.

Screw that! We can't feed the population of the world as it stands, and greater population only raises consumption of food and fuels, making matters worse and increasing the use of fossil fuels.

We should continue to provide education and other benefits to give the children we have the best possible chances to survive and contribute to humanity, but I think we should be encouraging less population, not more.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
After thinking about it a little bit, I think this "secular case against gay marriage" suggests a solution that should satisfy both parties. Since the benefits to society from marriage are derived from procreation, let's make it official and ONLY give tax breaks for couples with children. Marriage gives you absolutely NO benefits that cost society anything, just legal rights and cultural recognition. With that out of the way, let's open it up to gay couples as well. We're still encouraging procreation, and no longer encouraging gay marriage in a way that costs anyone anything. What do you think?

I might be able to sign on to this. There are some problems, like how big is the administrative costs of the institution of marriage and how much are we paying to add gay people, and the slippery slope of polygamy and male-male-female-female-etc group marriages. However because there isn't as big a group advocating for those people I don't see that problem arising in any major way. I figure the administrative costs are also relatively minor compared to the large group of gays who want to marry.

I would hope the results of this wouldn't be making more babies but would encourage those who were going to have them anyway to get married.

edit: actually even with the added costs I can see the benefit of encouraging gays with children to marry

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Rainsford
After thinking about it a little bit, I think this "secular case against gay marriage" suggests a solution that should satisfy both parties. Since the benefits to society from marriage are derived from procreation, let's make it official and ONLY give tax breaks for couples with children. Marriage gives you absolutely NO benefits that cost society anything, just legal rights and cultural recognition. With that out of the way, let's open it up to gay couples as well. We're still encouraging procreation, and no longer encouraging gay marriage in a way that costs anyone anything. What do you think?

I might be able to sign on to this. There are some problems, like how big is the administrative costs of the institution of marriage and how much are we paying to add gay people, and the slippery slope of polygamy and male-male-female-female-etc group marriages. However because there isn't as big a group advocating for those people I don't see that problem arising in any major way. I figure the administrative costs are also relatively minor compared to the large group of gays who want to marry.

I would hope the results of this wouldn't be making more babies but would encourage those who were going to have them anyway to get married.

edit: actually even with the added costs I can see the benefit of encouraging gays with children to marry

That's an interesting conclusion.

Good heavens. An AGREEMENT?

Isn't that a bannable offense?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Since the benefits to society from marriage are derived from procreation, let's make it official and ONLY give tax breaks for couples with children.

Screw that! We can't feed the population of the world as it stands, and greater population only raises consumption of food and fuels, making matters worse and increasing the use of fossil fuels.

We should continue to provide education and other benefits to give the children we have the best possible chances to survive and contribute to humanity, but I think we should be encouraging less population, not more.

I'm saying within the context of the argument being made in the article, this might not be a half bad solution. Really, the only point I'm trying to make is that I think the argument about gay marriage, on both sides, make far too many assumptions about what terms mean and how we can have our cake and eat it too. In this case, an argument against gay marriage might only be an argument against implementing gay marriage in a particular way.

 

[Farang]

I actually came into this as a supporter of gay marriage and I guess I'll leave it that way but there definitely needs to be a overview of how we look at marriage and reward it, like you said maybe the incentives only start with children. The article definitely dispels the notion that all anti-gay marriage people are bigots, though, because I think some valid points are being made there, like to a certain extent the burden of proof may lay with gays. In that regard I don't think anyone could convince me that a married gay couple raising a child is worse than an unmarried gay couple raising a child, so there for me is the proof that it is beneficial.

And Harvey, again, I don't understand why you even bother. You aren't even trying to convince anyone or be convinced you just like the confrontation I suppose. We already reward having children, and again not everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot. So your contribution here is nil.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Farang
I actually came into this as a supporter of gay marriage and I guess I'll leave it that way but there definitely needs to be a overview of how we look at marriage and reward it, like you said maybe the incentives only start with children. The article definitely dispels the notion that all anti-gay marriage people are bigots, though, because I think some valid points are being made there, like to a certain extent the burden of proof may lay with gays. In that regard I don't think anyone could convince me that a married gay couple raising a child is worse than an unmarried gay couple raising a child, so there for me is the proof that it is beneficial.

And Harvey, again, I don't understand why you even bother. You aren't even trying to convince anyone or be convinced you just like the confrontation I suppose. We already reward having children, and again not everyone who disagrees with you is a bigot. So your contribution here is nil.

One thing worth considering is that an argument in favor of a point is not the same thing as the reason the arguer adopted the position in the first place. The author of this article may be making a point that isn't overtly bigoted, but I'm not convinced it's the reason he's opposed to gay marriage in the first place. The argument is too clinical, and too socialistic, for me to really believe that this is how ANYONE views marriage, or this is why they oppose gay marriage.

Once you start trying to justify a position, there are all sorts of clever things that a decent debater can do to make his or her point. But when the author of this article thinks about getting married to the girl of his dreams, or for that matter when ANY of us straight folks meet our soul mates, I would be shocked if there is a single person who thinks "excellent, now I can contribute to society by procreating, I'm going to get married so I can get an excellent tax benefit". It's easy to come up with a view of marriage that might apply only to straight couples...but it's an excuse, not a reason, because no straight couple really thinks about marriage that way. And when you look at it that way, suddenly our reasons for wanting to get married don't seem that much different from a gay couple.

 

[Farang]

I think it is a waste of time to try to read people's mind and find their motives. He made a good argument but there is a solution to satisfy it while still allowing gay marriage, I leave it at that. Whether or not we personally take into account these things I don't find relevant, it is a social policy issue.

 

[her209]

Its the same old rehashed arguments.

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: her209
Its the same old rehashed arguments.

see second post...

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Harvey
Assuming for the sake of argument that the state CAN restrict gays from marrying, what rational, compelling, overriding reason is there for doing so? Gays aren't demanding that others should be forced to participate in their personal activities or relationships. They want only to be allowed the same freedom to conduct their own private, personal relationships as they choose.

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

How does instituting discriminatory, bigoted, homophobic prohibitions in our laws serve to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare or otherwise secure the blessings of liberty" for ALL of our citizens?

Why do you even bother to post here? You obviously did not read the article, as you did not address single point it made rather you just gave the basic argument in favor of allowing gay marriage. The rational reasons were clearly state in the article--the author does not see it as a merely a "freedom" but he sees it as an incentive the government provides for the purposes of procreation and propagation of society, and that is the only reason marriage is recognized under law. Therefore he says the burden is on gays to explain why the financial advantages of marriage should be extended to them, as the procreation element is gone and therefore the state's incentive is as well.

The author has got his argument backward. Fundamental rights are held by the people, and the state can limit the right only if can show a compelling interest for doing so. A compelling interest means something BAD will occur if the right is not restricted. Furthermore, the state must demonstrate that it doesn't possess a less burdensome means of countering that bad thing. And that's where the author's argument falls to pieces.

Let's accept the author at his word that the state extends marriage rights to encourage procreation. Let's further accept that same-sex couples are less likely then heterosexual couples to procreate. The author's conclusion is that that justifies excluding same-sex couples from marrying, because marriage costs society a lot. But his is where he's BSing.

Lots of the benefits of marriage don't cost the state a penny. For example, the rights of spouses to make decisions for their partner if the partner becomes incapacitated. Or the marital privilege, under which the state cannot compel one spouse to testify against the other - the purpose of which is to encourage intimacy and openness in the marital relationship.

So what exactly are these "burdens" that the state doesn't want to waste on couples not having children? The only one I can think of is tax benefits. But if that's the concern, make all tax benefits contingent on the existence of children. That is, rather than give a preferential tax rate to married couples with or without children, extend the preferential rate only to married couples that DO have children, and make the benefit larger the more children they have. Thus, only married couples with children - whether straight or gay - will cost the state money.

And this solution is exactly of the "less burdensome" type that the courts approve of. That is, if the state has an alternative (in this case, modification of the tax law) that mitigates the "harm" that the state claims it is trying to avoid and which is less burdensome in terms of trammeling fundamental rights, then that's what the court will recommend.

And note that the solution proposed would also deal with heterosexual married couples who don't procreate - infertile couples, couples who choose not to have children, and couples that are past their childbearing years.

Yes, the proposed solution deals with all of the author's concerns and leaves the fundamental right to marry unrestricted.

But guess what? None of those who oppose same-sex marriage would go for this less burdensome solution. Why? Because the procreation argument is bullshit. It's a fake. It's a lie. The right wing doesn't want same-sex marriage because it against their religion. Because they think it's yucky. Because it give them the willies. Because they think gays are sinful.

If procreation were REALLY the foundation of the anti-same-sex marriage argument, then we'd be seeing evidence that the right is advocating procreation generally. We'd see ad campaigns telling heterosexual couples have MORE children, to have children earlier, to change sex ed courses to give the message that lots of babies is a good thing.

But I don't see ANY of that.

The procreation argument is an incredibly weak attempt to pretend that there's a rational basis to oppose gay marriage. There isn't.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Farang
Assuming you support polygamy regarding consenting adults. So we have a love-based marriage system. Consenting adults can marry other adults, regardless of sex and the number involved. So me, Steve, Joe, Mary, Lucy, and John can get married? We have a marriage? Does this make sense to you? Under a love-based system I don't see how you can refute this as being not allowed, and I think most people would find it absurd and against the true intention of marriage.

Fundamentally what this comes down to is you see marriage as acknowledged by the government as a right. However it must be mentioned that nobody is banning marriage. Get married if you want. Just don't expect the government to sign off on it and give you the tax benefits that come with it.

As for drift3r..

We have two options here for what to consider recognized by law.

Marriage as between a man and a woman legally, only giving straight couples tax incentives. We are then encouraging an institution which provides, say, an 85% procreation rate.

Marriage as between a man and a man or a woman and a woman legally, all get the incentives. Procreation rate is extremely low within the couple. Evidence shows this is not the ideal situation for children. While certainly gay couples can be great parents, there is no evidence to show this is something we should be paying through tax incentives to promote.

Now you're saying we should allow the second group to be recognized because the first group's procreation rate is not 100%. I explained it isn't 100% because that last bit is tough to squeeze out, but the rate is still great overall. Solution has nothing to do with enforcement or getting into people's private business, just has to do with defining marriage for tax purposes as being between a man and a woman.

I'll play your little game: If procreation is really the reason our society extends marriage rights (it isn't, but I can't stand to let your BS go any further), then tie the tax benefits for married couples SOLELY to procreation. Deny marriage-related tax benefits to couple that doesn't have children. Even better, make the tax benefits proportional to procreation: The more children you have, the greater the benefit.

Now, on what basis can same-sex couples be denied the right to marry if THAT system were in place?

Come on, wiggle you way out of this one.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
After thinking about it a little bit, I think this "secular case against gay marriage" suggests a solution that should satisfy both parties. Since the benefits to society from marriage are derived from procreation, let's make it official and ONLY give tax breaks for couples with children. Marriage gives you absolutely NO benefits that cost society anything, just legal rights and cultural recognition. With that out of the way, let's open it up to gay couples as well. We're still encouraging procreation, and no longer encouraging gay marriage in a way that costs anyone anything. What do you think?

Exactly. I'm sure the right wing will embrace this strategy wholeheartedly, because they're really concerned with procreation.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Evan
It's a terrible argument since *all* rights have exceptions to them. Using this same logic, ethnic bigots could claim blacks don't have the right to vote simply because people under the age of 18 can't vote. Of course, that rule is in place simply because we've made a reasonable decision that you're not old enough to vote until you reach the age of 18. The slippery slope nonsense about "If we let gays marry we have to let polygamists marry" is a false choice and was used by the same people who wanted to suppress inter-racial
marriage.

Did you read the whole article? He addresses the distinction between interracial marriage and gay marriage.

Incidentally, I love your sig.

Even's voting analogy isn't bad though. The core of the author's argument seems to be that since SOME restrictions on marriage exist, any group that wants to get married has to demonstrate how their marriage benefits the state, otherwise their marriage should be banned. In Evan's comparison, because we don't let every single person in the country vote, no one should be able to vote unless they demonstrate that the state has an interest in letting them do so.

It's a very weak logical leap, because restrictions on marriage (or voting) aren't proven to exist because EVERYONE was evaluated and some groups passed while others did not. In general, rights are restricted based on a good reason, not only extended when there is a good reason. Straight couples didn't have to audition to be allowed to marry, why should gay couples?

I think Rainsford is right. In fact, we should apply this same logic to firearms. I shouldn't have to prove that I need firearms to the government. The right to own firearms should be as loose as possible and only restricted when absolutely necessary, not just extended when there's a good reason.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Farang

Originally posted by: Harvey
Assuming for the sake of argument that the state CAN restrict gays from marrying, what rational, compelling, overriding reason is there for doing so? Gays aren't demanding that others should be forced to participate in their personal activities or relationships. They want only to be allowed the same freedom to conduct their own private, personal relationships as they choose.

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

How does instituting discriminatory, bigoted, homophobic prohibitions in our laws serve to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare or otherwise secure the blessings of liberty" for ALL of our citizens?

Why do you even bother to post here? You obviously did not read the article, as you did not address single point it made rather you just gave the basic argument in favor of allowing gay marriage. The rational reasons were clearly state in the article--the author does not see it as a merely a "freedom" but he sees it as an incentive the government provides for the purposes of procreation and propagation of society, and that is the only reason marriage is recognized under law. Therefore he says the burden is on gays to explain why the financial advantages of marriage should be extended to them, as the procreation element is gone and therefore the state's incentive is as well.

The author has got his argument backward. Fundamental rights are held by the people, and the state can limit the right only if can show a compelling interest for doing so. A compelling interest means something BAD will occur if the right is not restricted. Furthermore, the state must demonstrate that it doesn't possess a less burdensome means of countering that bad thing. And that's where the author's argument falls to pieces.

Let's accept the author at his word that the state extends marriage rights to encourage procreation. Let's further accept that same-sex couples are less likely then heterosexual couples to procreate. The author's conclusion is that that justifies excluding same-sex couples from marrying, because marriage costs society a lot. But his is where he's BSing.

Lots of the benefits of marriage don't cost the state a penny. For example, the rights of spouses to make decisions for their partner if the partner becomes incapacitated. Or the marital privilege, under which the state cannot compel one spouse to testify against the other - the purpose of which is to encourage intimacy and openness in the marital relationship.

So what exactly are these "burdens" that the state doesn't want to waste on couples not having children? The only one I can think of is tax benefits. But if that's the concern, make all tax benefits contingent on the existence of children. That is, rather than give a preferential tax rate to married couples with or without children, extend the preferential rate only to married couples that DO have children, and make the benefit larger the more children they have. Thus, only married couples with children - whether straight or gay - will cost the state money.

And this solution is exactly of the "less burdensome" type that the courts approve of. That is, if the state has an alternative (in this case, modification of the tax law) that mitigates the "harm" that the state claims it is trying to avoid and which is less burdensome in terms of trammeling fundamental rights, then that's what the court will recommend.

And note that the solution proposed would also deal with heterosexual married couples who don't procreate - infertile couples, couples who choose not to have children, and couples that are past their childbearing years.

Yes, the proposed solution deals with all of the author's concerns and leaves the fundamental right to marry unrestricted.

But guess what? None of those who oppose same-sex marriage would go for this less burdensome solution. Why? Because the procreation argument is bullshit. It's a fake. It's a lie. The right wing doesn't want same-sex marriage because it against their religion. Because they think it's yucky. Because it give them the willies. Because they think gays are sinful.

If procreation were REALLY the foundation of the anti-same-sex marriage argument, then we'd be seeing evidence that the right is advocating procreation generally. We'd see ad campaigns telling heterosexual couples have MORE children, to have children earlier, to change sex ed courses to give the message that lots of babies is a good thing.

But I don't see ANY of that.

The procreation argument is bullsh!t. It's a fake. It's an incredibly weak attempt to pretend that there's a rational basis to oppose gay marriage. There isn't.

I agree. The procreation argument is complete bullshit. There is no compelling reason for restricting gays from getting married in terms of making it legal. A church can choose to be bigots and not marry gays if they feel that that is necessary, but they should not interfere with the legal realm. This whole procreation argument is a thinly veiled bigots position. The church constantly tries to hide behind bogus semantics arguments to try to justify their standards which they have managed to impose on society. Enough is enough.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: Harvey
Assuming for the sake of argument that the state CAN restrict gays from marrying, what rational, compelling, overriding reason is there for doing so? Gays aren't demanding that others should be forced to participate in their personal activities or relationships. They want only to be allowed the same freedom to conduct their own private, personal relationships as they choose.

The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States of America says:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

How does instituting discriminatory, bigoted, homophobic prohibitions in our laws serve to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare or otherwise secure the blessings of liberty" for ALL of our citizens?

You talk big to draw big attention. Get off your high horse and come back down to reality. :roll:

But to try and hammer some sense it to ya - no one anywhere is denying gays the right to marry. Marriage is defined as one man and one woman. Who out there is denying a gay man marriage to a woman?

Sure that's a bit of sarcasm thrown in, but some people just will never "get it"...

Irony of the week award at 4:05 AM Sunday, the earliest ever awarded.

The 'gays can marry the opposite gender' argument has been rebutted ad nauseum.

At least you have the sense to refer to it as sarcasm rather than to actually make the argument (even while you seem to act like it's a real argument too), but still.

You add nothing to the discussion, but merely say you are on one (wrong) side.

In case I give you too much credit, the one sentence rebuttal:

'Outlawing inter-racial marriage isn't discriminatory - each black or white person has fully equal rights to anyone else to marry someone of the same race'.

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Harvey
OK. Here's a dose of reality. You're a self-centered, self-serving, fear mongering, homophobic BIGOT. I wouldn't be suprised if it's because you're a closet gay, and you talk big because you're scared shitless others will figure it out.

I love when the tolerant "bigot" screaming lefties expose their hypocrisy when they use homosexuality as a vehicle for insulting someone by pointing their fingers and screaming "you're gay!!!!!!"

You're a pathetic joke Harvey.......and no, I will not kiss your ass you shameless hypocritical BIGOT.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Harvey

OK. Here's a dose of reality. You're a self-centered, self-serving, fear mongering, homophobic BIGOT. I wouldn't be suprised if it's because you're a closet gay, and you talk big because you're scared shitless others will figure it out.

I love when the tolerant "bigot" screaming lefties expose their hypocrisy when they use homosexuality as a vehicle for insulting someone by pointing their fingers and screaming "you're gay!!!!!!"

Unless I missed something, you haven't posted your views on gay marriage, at least in this thread, but I love how your sarcasm meter conveniently malfunctions when it comes to pimping the pathetic, discriminatory views of BIGOTS like cubby1223, to whom I was replying.

You're a pathetic joke Harvey.......and no, I will not kiss your ass you shameless hypocritical BIGOT.

BUAHAhahahaha!!! If you tried, I'd be tempted to fart while offering you match. :laugh:

 

[Corn]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Corn

Originally posted by: Harvey

OK. Here's a dose of reality. You're a self-centered, self-serving, fear mongering, homophobic BIGOT. I wouldn't be suprised if it's because you're a closet gay, and you talk big because you're scared shitless others will figure it out.

I love when the tolerant "bigot" screaming lefties expose their hypocrisy when they use homosexuality as a vehicle for insulting someone by pointing their fingers and screaming "you're gay!!!!!!"

Unless I missed something, you haven't posted your views on gay marriage, at least in this thread, but I love how your sarcasm meter conveniently malfunctions when it comes to pimping the pathetic, discriminatory views of BIGOTS like cubby1223, to whom I was replying.

You're a pathetic joke Harvey.......and no, I will not kiss your ass you shameless hypocritical BIGOT.

BUAHAhahahaha!!!] If you tried, I'd be tempted to fart while offering you match. :laugh:

My sarcasm meter functions just fine. What you did was no more excusable than if you had pointed at a supposed Nazi and called him a "beloved patriot". The bottom line is you show your true colors when you use homosexuality as an insult. It would seem to me that your constant obstreperous accusations of bigotry are merely cover to assuage the guilt you feel over your own bigotry. Obviously I don't expect acknowledgement of this, as you show over and over the incapacity for introspective thought. As your repertoire shows, repetition of singular points of view are all you seem to be capable of, thus your nickname: Harveybot.

Now, as far as my opinion of the topic is concerned, I'll simply restate what I've stated before. Marriage is defined as the establishment of a man and woman to live as husband and wife. Therefore, it is impossible for homosexual couples to be married. As much as a frog wants to be a tree, it will never be. Even if you call the frog a tree, it is still a frog. Marriage is a religious construct that has been sanctioned as a civil union by the state. It is my opinion that homosexual couples should have all of the rights accorded to married heterosexual couples, nothing less, nothing more and arguing over semantics is silly.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Corn

My sarcasm meter functions just fine. What you did was no more excusable than if you had pointed at a supposed Nazi and called him a "beloved patriot". The bottom line is you show your true colors when you use homosexuality as an insult. It would seem to me that your constant obstreperous accusations of bigotry are merely cover to assuage the guilt you feel over your own bigotry. Obviously I don't expect acknowledgement of this, as you show over and over the incapacity for introspective thought. As your repertoire shows, repetition of singular points of view are all you seem to be capable of, thus your nickname: Harveybot.

Well, you're wrong in your analysis of his statements. Pointing out the prevalence of homosexuality among the loudest anti-gay people serves a lot more purpose than 'nsme-calling', and nothing about it implies that 'gay is bad'. Part of discussing the issue can include trying to understand the reasons why people hold certain - especially 'wrong' - views, and this part of doing that.

Among racial superiority groups, like skinheads or neo-Nazis or the KKK, a lot of energy was wasted simply addressing them as people filled with hate for those other groups.

Research came to find a nearly universal presence of psychological problems about selfl-loathing that went far to explain why people hold those views, things like how their determination to discriminate is so powerful because it has to do with their own feeling of being 'better', and it really has very little to do with the actual target group, so you are wasting time to try to defend the target groups from their accusations.

The idea that anti-gay people are secretly gays who, whether they realize it or not, are so hateful because of their own shame, is both one that can easily be abused, applied too quickly without any basis and be wrong, but one that ahs enough truth to it that it's an important part of understanding the issue, true of many people.

You missed all that in your attack on Harvey, misunderstanding the point as simply being 'repeated bigotry' on his part.

Now, as far as my opinion of the topic is concerned, I'll simply restate what I've stated before. Marriage is defined as the establishment of a man and woman to live as husband and wife. Therefore, it is impossible for homosexual couples to be married. As much as a frog wants to be a tree, it will never be. Even if you call the frog a tree, it is still a frog. Marriage is a religious construct that has been sanctioned as a civil union by the state. It is my opinion that homosexual couples should have all of the rights accorded to married heterosexual couples, nothing less, nothing more and arguing over semantics is silly.

The fallacy in your argument that is one most six year olds would not make, is your assumption that you get to define 'marriage' as some fixed definition having no flexibility.

We're not talking about frogs and trees here as in your poor analogy, where naming doesn't change what things are. We're talking about recognizing things for what they are - gay people as fully people, with real relationships that are just as suitable for marriage as heterosexual couples - and ending the legal discrimnation against gays by discriminating legally. Nothing in that is trying to call a tree a frog. You're the one trying to claim some basis for discrimination without any justification.

You do, however, have the right view on equal rights other than 'the word marriage', and the next step is for you to consider why that's so important to you.

I find that discrimination often ends in waves, gradually, and things entrenchend like 'the word marriage' can at first be seen as things not to change, and later be seen differently.

Ultimately, gay marriage exists now in some places - why are those people any less married than anyone else? It's a real question. I understand that if people marrying dogs was made legal and there were people-dog couples the same question could be asked - but it would have an answer, about the nature of marriage the capacity of the dog to participate in a meaningful way as a human does. The same answer does not apply to gay people.

 

[Corn]

So, to sum up the last part of Craig's typically pleonastic reply, he is, in fact, making the silly semantics argument......exactly the argument a 6 year old would make: Don't like something? Pretend its something else.

The simplicity of that logic appeals to people like you Craig, but in the end, it is still just pretend.

Marriage has already been defined. Give me a compelling argument why that term requires a redefinition simply to suit your whims, instead of, say, embracing a term more suited in describing people who engage in committed homosexual relationships. Hell son, if such a term doesn't truly exist I actually believe you have it within you to conjur up in your minds eye something that might fit the bill.

But use whatever term you like, I certainly won't stop you no matter how silly you sound.

Now, on to your idiotic defense of Harveybot's putrid diatribe:

Well, you're wrong in your analysis of his statements. Pointing out the prevalence of homosexuality among the loudest anti-gay people serves a lot more purpose than 'nsme-calling', and nothing about it implies that 'gay is bad'. Part of discussing the issue can include trying to understand the reasons why people hold certain - especially 'wrong' - views, and this part of doing that.

LOL, Harveybot wasn't trying to delve into the psyche of a homophope--peeling back layers trying to rouse cubby1223's latent homosexuality. If you believe Harveybot's words were anything but an intended insult than you'll believe just about anything. Of course I don't think you're that stupid and thus must surmise your defense is nothing more than an exercise in intellectual dishonesty. He's a bigot and you defend it. Maybe you're a bigot too. Is that what drives your crusade to redefine marriage? The guilt you feel over your own bigotry?

Its doubtful you'll offer up an honest answer so I'll just take a play out of your book and ask you to kindly not reply to any more of my posts as you are undeserving of the privilege to be enlightened by their contents, much less interact with them.

Off you go now.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: Corn
Now, as far as my opinion of the topic is concerned, I'll simply restate what I've stated before. Marriage is defined as the establishment of a man and woman to live as husband and wife. Therefore, it is impossible for homosexual couples to be married. As much as a frog wants to be a tree, it will never be. Even if you call the frog a tree, it is still a frog. Marriage is a religious construct that has been sanctioned as a civil union by the state. It is my opinion that homosexual couples should have all of the rights accorded to married heterosexual couples, nothing less, nothing more and arguing over semantics is silly.

After hearing all the religious 'man and woman' arguments ad nausem I've come to a realization. What we need is not to allow homosexual marriage, it is to ban heterosexual marriage.
The state can not make any laws concerning religion, and as has been pointed out again and again, marriage is a religious institute.
Besides, marriage actually gets in the way or reproduction. Committed married heterosexual couples actually have fewer children then non-married couples. (which refutes the argument of the linked article)

" But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious."
This is just silly, they author is trying to claim that 2 men can not effectively inseminate 3 women.

If the goal of society is to increase population, then poly marriage is the most effective way to do that. One man can inseminate many women a year, but a woman can only get pregnant around one a year.

Every argument I hear against homosexual argument actually works better as a argument against traditional heterosexual marriage, or marriage at all.

So, as a summation, the only two arguments I have seen that people even treat like there is any merit to are:
1. "Marriage is defined as: One man, One Woman"
It is a religious argument that, and religious arguments have no place in our government.
2. The only valid point of marriage is to reproduce
Reproduction is very poorly handed by traditional heterosexual marriage, and is much more effective in any number of other setups, including no marriage at all.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: Corn
Now, as far as my opinion of the topic is concerned, I'll simply restate what I've stated before. Marriage is defined as the establishment of a man and woman to live as husband and wife. Therefore, it is impossible for homosexual couples to be married. As much as a frog wants to be a tree, it will never be. Even if you call the frog a tree, it is still a frog. Marriage is a religious construct that has been sanctioned as a civil union by the state. It is my opinion that homosexual couples should have all of the rights accorded to married heterosexual couples, nothing less, nothing more and arguing over semantics is silly.

After hearing all the religious 'man and woman' arguments ad nausem I've come to a realization. What we need is not to allow homosexual marriage, it is to ban heterosexual marriage.
The state can not make any laws concerning religion, and as has been pointed out again and again, marriage is a religious institute.
Besides, marriage actually gets in the way or reproduction. Committed married heterosexual couples actually have fewer children then non-married couples. (which refutes the argument of the linked article)

" But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction than love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious."
This is just silly, they author is trying to claim that 2 men can not effectively inseminate 3 women.

If the goal of society is to increase population, then poly marriage is the most effective way to do that. One man can inseminate many women a year, but a woman can only get pregnant around one a year.

Every argument I hear against homosexual argument actually works better as a argument against traditional heterosexual marriage, or marriage at all.

So, as a summation, the only two arguments I have seen that people even treat like there is any merit to are:
1. "Marriage is defined as: One man, One Woman"
It is a religious argument that, and religious arguments have no place in our government.
2. The only valid point of marriage is to reproduce
Reproduction is very poorly handed by traditional heterosexual marriage, and is much more effective in any number of other setups, including no marriage at all.

These are the the sorts of arguments people give when they have come to the conclusion that gay marriage is bad first, and then desperately have to search for a reason why.

 

[OrByte]

I hope the author of this article wasn't graded on it.

Take the words "Civil Rights" out of the equation because I think that term just trips people up. Equal protection under the 14th Amendment is what will be the basis for the argument against Anti-gay legislation. The 14th extends equal treatment in an effort to make "all men are created equal" the foundation of our judicial system.

with that in mind. argue against gay marriage. Have fun.

I like how the author dismisses the analogy of anti-gay law to anti-interracial law as something that is erroneous because "fertility does not depend on race"

does marriage depend on fertility?

He deserves an F for his argument.

Edit: and at the end of his article he STILL relies on the age old slipper-slope argument (polygamy)

yeah if this is the best "secular" argument against gay marriage then this is sad.

 

[jonks]

However, there is ample evidence (see, for example, David Popenoe?s Life Without Father) that children need both a male and female parent for proper development. Unfortunately, small sample sizes and other methodological problems make it impossible to draw conclusions from studies that directly examine the effects of gay parenting. However, the empirically verified common wisdom about the importance of a mother and father in a child?s development should give advocates of gay adoption pause. The differences between men and women extend beyond anatomy, so it is essential for a child to be nurtured by parents of both sexes if a child is to learn to function in a society made up of both sexes. Is it wise to have a social policy that encourages family arrangements that deny children such essentials? Gays are not necessarily bad parents, nor will they necessarily make their children gay, but they cannot provide a set of parents that includes both a male and a female.

Paging AP. AP, you have a courtesy call at the "you are not able to function in a society made up of both sexes" desk. Paging AP.

 

[Fern]

Awhile back eskimo requested an argument against gay marriage which had no grounding in a moral or religious source.

Gays aren't demanding that others should be forced to participate in their personal activities or relationships.

I don't like to particpate in these type threads (endlessly recurring-type discussions such as creation v. evolution, MMGW etc where no new info is ever presented and no one's mind will be changed) but I'll add just one post to this thread.

In response to eskimospy's request, I'll add that there is a financial argument against gay marriage. There is not much that I like to subsidize through taxes or increased costs in products, but when we legalize gay marriage we will be subsidizing that arrangment. E.g., if a company offers medical coverage to the spouses of employees, this will by law be required to be extended to gay couples. So, if a gay person has their spouse acting as a housewife (unemployed/staying at home) we will be subsidizing that lifestyle.

I don't care if you want that lifestyle, but I see no good reason to force others to subsidize it. If a company wishes to implement that policy (treating gay couples the same as standard married ones) as Disney does, I think that is their right and see no good reason that the government should either ban it or mandate it.

So, there are reasons other than morals or religion (I hold no objections based upon either of those).

So yes, we will be "participating in their personal activities or relationships" via finacial subsidy. And I expect this will be forced upon the unwilling by courts. Actually, I expect quite a bit of litigation were gay marriage to pass. (Would a church who fired their preacher/pastor/whatever after he dumped his wife and came out of the closet with his *boyfriend* be sued? I think the answe is yes.)

Fern