Support for same-sex marriage reaches record high

[nehalem256]

I don't get your point, you were talking about the concept of marriage for the last 1k years or don't you know that a millennia is actually 1k years? I would say that the definition of who may or may not get a licence depends entirely on where you live and it always has.

Perhaps this article can explain the difference:

A narrow point we disagree on is the comparison of opposing interracial marriage to opposing gay marriage. Opposition to interracial marriage was all but synonymous with a belief in the superiority of one race and the inferiority of another. (In fact, it was inextricably tied to a singularly insidious ideology of white supremacy and black subjugation that has done more damage to America and its people than anything else, and that ranks among the most obscene crimes in history.)

Opposition to gay marriage can be rooted in the insidious belief that gays are inferior, but it's also commonly rooted in the much-less-problematic belief that marriage is a procreative institution, not one meant to join couples for love and companionship alone.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ts-should-not-be-treated-like-racists/360446/

So for instance. Interracial marriage was outlawed not because the idea didn't make sense. But it was outlawed precisely because the idea made sense but society just didn't want a bunch of mixed-raced babies running around.

EDIT: So to return to my DL analogy. Whether the age to get a DL is 15, 16, or 17 doesn't change the definition of a DL. But if a DL also lets you fly a plane too then it pretty obviously does.

 

[nehalem256]

Good. The sooner we're done bickering over this useless issue (and I mean it's useless because any two non-related adult human beings should be able to get married- it's no one else's business) the better.

If you accept same-sex marriage it is non-nonsensical to reject related adults marrying each other.

 

[nehalem256]

I can demonstrate harm with polygamist marriages, can you demonstrate harm with SSM?

There is no inherent harm in letting someone marry multiple people.

 

[mikeymikec]

Of course that's oppression.

So why is that oppression but pushing for the maintenance of an SSM ban isn't?

Is keeping polygamists from marrying oppression?

It could be seen as that. If one wishes to argue against polygamy, one should have a logical and sound argument to put forward.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Perhaps this article can explain the difference:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...ts-should-not-be-treated-like-racists/360446/

So for instance. Interracial marriage was outlawed not because the idea didn't make sense. But it was outlawed precisely because the idea made sense but society just didn't want a bunch of mixed-raced babies running around.

EDIT: So to return to my DL analogy. Whether the age to get a DL is 15, 16, or 17 doesn't change the definition of a DL. But if a DL also lets you fly a plane too then it pretty obviously does.

This would work if marriage required the female to be pregnant and if every single couple that do not want to reproduce or cannot reproduce were excluded. To change the definition from what it is today into that would be more of a change than to not discriminate against homosexuals. Actually, if it allows you to drive any car you want then... the definition is that all cars are included. To make it in line with what your "marriage is about procreation" stupidity we should require everyone who have a DL to buy at least one car.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

There is no inherent harm in letting someone marry multiple people.

I disagree on this simply because of how polygamy has always worked in every society that has practised it. i would also ask where the limits will be drawn? It would also require an entirely new way of dealing with marital law since we are now not determining the spouse but rather the spouses. Is that enough harm demonstrated to disallow Tim from marrying John who marries Lisa but not Tim who marries Jenny but not John or Lisa and before you know it and so on and so forth?

 

[zinfamous]

If you accept same-sex marriage it is non-nonsensical to reject related adults marrying each other.

This is why no one takes you seriously.

 

[MrPickins]

If a state changed the law so you had to be 17 instead of 16 to get a driver's license would you say the definition of a DL had been changed?

I would ask the same of you...



(In case you can't tell, this argument works against your opinion, not for it.)

 

[Atreus21]

So why is that oppression but pushing for the maintenance of an SSM ban isn't?

Well, for one thing, revoking a right is not the same as inventing one that has never existed then claiming it is suddenly universal.

For another, regulating sexual behavior is not the same as regulating religious exercise.

Apart from this, the reason I responded to this thread was to challenge Newell, not to engage in yet another pointless debate over SSM.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Well, for one thing, revoking a right is not the same as inventing one that has never existed then claiming it is suddenly universal.

For another, regulating sexual behavior is not the same as regulating religious exercise.

Apart from this, the reason I responded to this thread was to challenge Newell, not to engage in yet another pointless debate over SSM.

"inventing one that has never existed"? You're going to have to explain this one. Ending discrimination does not invent a new right, it recognizes human beings as being human and allows them to have access to equal rights. "regulating sexual behaviour"? That doesn't make sense, homosexuals will have sex whether they are married or not, this discussion has nothing to do with sexual behaviour.

 

[Atreus21]

"inventing one that has never existed"? You're going to have to explain this one. Ending discrimination does not invent a new right, it recognizes human beings as being human and allows them to have access to equal rights. "regulating sexual behaviour"? That doesn't make sense, homosexuals will have sex whether they are married or not, this discussion has nothing to do with sexual behaviour.

So, I'm sure, will people engaging in bestiality and any number of sexual acts. That doesn't mean society must confer on it the title of marriage.

Marriage exists because society has an interest in a union that typically produces new citizens. They have no such interest in a union that is biologically incapable of it.

Marriage laws ensure that the vast majority of those getting the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

So, I'm sure, will people engaging in bestiality and any number of sexual acts. That doesn't mean society must confer on it the title of marriage.

Marriage exists because society has an interest in a union that typically produces new citizens. They have no such interest in a union that is biologically incapable of it.

Marriage laws ensure that the vast majority of those get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

And you've fallen into the trap of Nehalems "logic" can a fucking animal legally consent you reject of a human intellect?

Marriage carries NO requirement of reproduction to my knowledge, if it does to yours then fucking present it instead of dragging up crap for an inexcusable position, especially crap that i have ALREADY RESPONDED TO.

Stop pissing about and tell me the real reason for your opposition, admit that you want society to bend to the whims of your religion and institute a Christian form of Sharia.

I'd respect you if you could admit that rather than try to come up with this rehashed idiocy that makes you seem like you are both illiterate (since i've already responded to it) and stupid (cannot even grasp the basic logic of your own fucking argument).

 

[brycejones]

Good. The sooner we're done bickering over this useless issue (and I mean it's useless because any two non-related adult human beings should be able to get married- it's no one else's business) the better.

Awesome we agree on something.

Why stop at 2?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Awesome we agree on something.

Why stop at 2?

Baby steps. Eventually polygamy will be legal (which I'm fine with), but given a 50% divorce rate and the issues we already have with determining who gets what in marriage dissolutions (or next of kin rights after death, for that matter), that's going to take a LOT more effort to write laws for than swapping in "two adults of either sex" for "two adults of the opposite sex."

 

[mikeymikec]

Well, for one thing, revoking a right is not the same as inventing one that has never existed then claiming it is suddenly universal.

Please explain how it is different from the point of view of the oppressed. I personally can't see the logic of "they didn't have that right already, so it's not oppression!".

For another, regulating sexual behavior is not the same as regulating religious exercise.

How so?

And how does banning SSM regulate sexual behaviour exactly, do you think they'll be less gay if you don't let them marry?

Apart from this, the reason I responded to this thread was to challenge Newell, not to engage in yet another pointless debate over SSM.

Well, if you tried to come up with arguments that made sense, then this discussion wouldn't need to occur.

So, I'm sure, will people engaging in bestiality and any number of sexual acts. That doesn't mean society must confer on it the title of marriage.

Your comparisons are rather telling, IMO.

 

[brycejones]

Baby steps. Eventually polygamy will be legal (which I'm fine with), but given a 50% divorce rate and the issues we already have with determining who gets what in marriage dissolutions (or next of kin rights after death, for that matter), that's going to take a LOT more effort to write laws for than swapping in "two adults of either sex" for "two adults of the opposite sex."

True enough. I don't have a problem with polygamy as long as everyone involved is fully able to consent.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Baby steps. Eventually polygamy will be legal (which I'm fine with), but given a 50% divorce rate and the issues we already have with determining who gets what in marriage dissolutions (or next of kin rights after death, for that matter), that's going to take a LOT more effort to write laws for than swapping in "two adults of either sex" for "two adults of the opposite sex."

The problem there is abuse, traditionally polygamy has been restricted to those who have enough power to buy their slaves/women and even if that would not occur, what would the limit be? Let's say i send out a marriage proposal to NY, yes, everyone in NY and i get about 60k that wants to intermarry in different ways for taxation reasons... how the fuck would you handle that? The ability to cheat the system is a form of harm and if harm can be demonstrated then a practice can be deemed harmful to society and illegal.

 

[MasterOfUsers]

True enough. I don't have a problem with polygamy as long as everyone involved is fully able to consent.

In no nation that has ever practised polygamy has that ever been a problem, they will consent or else.

 

[alzan]

So, I'm sure, will people engaging in bestiality and any number of sexual acts. That doesn't mean society must confer on it the title of marriage.

Marriage exists because society has an interest in a union that typically produces new citizens. They have no such interest in a union that is biologically incapable of it.

Marriage laws ensure that the vast majority of those getting the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

For what hopefully is the last time, SSM does not equal bestiality.

Society and government are interested in monogamous, stable relationships.

Marriage laws do not force or even ask opposite sex couples to procreate nor deny licenses to those who cannot or will not produce offspring.

 

[Retro Rob]

Baby steps. Eventually polygamy will be legal (which I'm fine with), but given a 50% divorce rate and the issues we already have with determining who gets what in marriage dissolutions (or next of kin rights after death, for that matter), that's going to take a LOT more effort to write laws for than swapping in "two adults of either sex" for "two adults of the opposite sex."

So, the 50% percent divorce rate already demonstrates that people see marriage as a disposable agreement with just two people involved, so lets allow three or more people.

Why not just save all the potential BS you're speaking about and keep it illegal -- there is no reason, NO benefit to society (other than to pacify sex-crazed maniacs) to allow it.

 

[brycejones]

So, the 50% percent divorce rate already demonstrates that people see marriage as a disposable agreement with just two people involved, so lets allow three or more people.

Why not just save all the potential BS you're speaking about and keep it illegal -- there is no reason, NO benefit to society (other than to pacify sex-crazed maniacs) to allow it.

I'm sorry, your criteria for allowing people to do something is rather or not YOU perceive a benefit to society?

I guess you really aren't a believer in giving people as much freedom as possible.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

So, the 50% percent divorce rate already demonstrates that people see marriage as a disposable agreement with just two people involved, so lets allow three or more people.

Why not just save all the potential BS you're speaking about and keep it illegal -- there is no reason, NO benefit to society (other than to pacify sex-crazed maniacs) to allow it.

Because freedom. I'm in favor of basically anything as long as it is not demonstrably causing harm to someone else. If three people love each other and want to get married, that doesn't harm anyone; who am I to judge their relationship as less important than anyone else's? Regardless, this is a completely irrelevant diversion to the topic of gay marriage, so let's ignore this tangent and swing back around to the gays.

Marriage laws do not force or even ask opposite sex couples to procreate nor deny licenses to those who cannot or will not produce offspring.

Additionally, gay couples can still have their own children through a variety of means or legally adopt, so if you're arguing that marriage is important for raising children, you'd concede that gay couples with children should be allowed to marry. For some reason, proponents of the argument that marriage is a means of controlling reproduction always gloss over the fact that millions of gay people raise children now.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'm sorry, your criteria for allowing people to do something is rather or not YOU perceive a benefit to society?

I guess you really aren't a believer in giving people as much freedom as possible.

If you're asking if I am an Anarchist or Libertarian, then no, I am not for allowing "as much freedom as possible" as that an extremely subjective phrase anyway, and are extremists views.

 

[Retro Rob]

Because freedom. I'm in favor of basically anything as long as it is not demonstrably causing harm to someone else. If three people love each other and want to get married, that doesn't harm anyone; who am I to judge their relationship as less important than anyone else's? Regardless, this is a completely irrelevant diversion to the topic of gay marriage, so let's ignore this tangent and swing back around to the gays.

So more single parent families aren't "demonstrable harm"? We haven't proven we can handle two-person marriage without breaking up families (which we don't need more of), so why allow three or more?

Would that decrease the divorce rate? Would that make families closer and improve the human condition?

The goal, IMO, should be to make the world better...not just "give freedom".

 

[MasterOfUsers]

Additionally, gay couples can still have their own children through a variety of means or legally adopt, so if you're arguing that marriage is important for raising children, you'd concede that gay couples with children should be allowed to marry. For some reason, proponents of the argument that marriage is a means of controlling reproduction always gloss over the fact that millions of gay people raise children now.

True, one of my best friends was raised by a lesbian couple after his actual parents were killed in a car crash (he was a few months old at the time).

I've seen people make the argument that gay people are too promiscuous as an argument why they shouldn't be allowed to marry. These people cannot think, they really cannot think at all and they are not trying to either, what they are doing is following their religious dogma and spouting off reasons that are in FAVOUR of gays getting married and they can't even understand that.