What exactly is the argument against Gay Marriage?

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: Legend
The question I have yet to answered, by pro same-sex marriage people, is if we remove the gender requirement from marriage, on what grounds can we keep polygamy illegal?

So weak. What does same-sex marriage have to do with polygamy? Nothing. That's like asking what interracial marriage has to do with it.


so weak that you can't answer it?

does the Goverment, a.k.a. the people, have the right to regulate marriage? if it does where can it draw the lines.

Polygamy has a much longer history and tradition then same-sex marriage, there are groups actively pushing for it. Yet we have banned it. Does the government have the right to do that?
 

engineereeyore

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2005
2,070
0
0
Originally posted by: Tab
It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Unless, you want to show me some peer-reviewed science journals that prove "Christianity" to be factual.


Why would I want science to back it up? Science as we understand it is imperfect. Constantly changing. Being an engineer, I do a lot of work with science and see it change all the time. Science has many theories, and very few certainties. And even the certainties are only that way until we discover more about them.

So you'll have to fogive me, but I don't really rely on science for my beliefs in the history of the world.

Once thing is certain. I can't prove to you that God exist, and you can't prove to me that he doesn't. So like I said, I appreciate you opinion and hope it serves you well.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,591
6,715
126
Originally posted by: Tab
It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Unless, you want to show me some peer-reviewed science journals that prove "Christianity" to be factual.

My guess would be that marriage is a reflection of the fact that humans are a monogamous form of chimpanzee and that men wrote the Bible from what the animal in them knew.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: shrumpage
The question I have yet to answered, by pro same-sex marriage people, is if we remove the gender requirement from marriage, on what grounds can we keep polygamy illegal?

um, how does removing gender as a requirement alter the various other requirements:

1. that there be two individuals in the marriage (not 3, or 4, or 50)
2. that the participants be of adult age and legally able to consent to marriage
3. that the individuals enter into the marriage willingly (they aren't coerced, they are able to consent)
4. etc.

Whether or not you want to change the number of individuals allowed in a marriage is a bit of a different question than e.g., whether or not you want to:
1. change the ages at which people can marry, or
2. change the gender requirements for the marrying couple

Polygamy and same-sex marriage are separate issues, the pros and cons for each are different, and these two issues need to be addressed separately in my opinion.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Originally posted by: shrumpage
The question I have yet to answered, by pro same-sex marriage people, is if we remove the gender requirement from marriage, on what grounds can we keep polygamy illegal?

You can not. There is no logical basis for the government to make rules for or against marriage at all. There is no logical basis for rules aginst same-sex marriage, and there is no logical basis for rules aginst group marriages.

wrong.

Government has a huge interest in families. Know what the most common factor of inmates is? they don't have fathers (or fathers that stick around). Going back to pre-civil war days, there was an effort by plantation owners to break up slave families to make them weaker and easier to control. It is better for kids to grow up in a structured, unchanging enviroment. I've watached slow as a friends daughter live with her mom as she bounces to boyfriend to boyfriend - the boyfriends aren't terriable (no drug dealers). But not having that security has effected here.

People who are married and have kids are more likely to stick togather, as opposed to those who have kids that are not in a marriage. Intact families tend to contribute better to society.

so the government does have an interest in marriage.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: Tab
It's not an opinion, it's a fact. Unless, you want to show me some peer-reviewed science journals that prove "Christianity" to be factual.


Why would I want science to back it up? Science as we understand it is imperfect. Constantly changing. Being an engineer, I do a lot of work with science and see it change all the time. Science has many theories, and very few certainties. And even the certainties are only that way until we discover more about them.

So you'll have to fogive me, but I don't really rely on science for my beliefs in the history of the world.

Once thing is certain. I can't prove to you that God exist, and you can't prove to me that he doesn't. So like I said, I appreciate you opinion and hope it serves you well.

Why would you want science to back it up? Why not? Do any have other way of backing it up at all?

There are plently of scientific principles that change all the time, but they currently offer a much better explanation of how the world works.

Thats great that you have your own personal beilfes in God, but those are personal. They're unproven and our goverment is secular. They have absolutely no relation into the current gay marriage debate, our goverment is just performing in a sense "civil unions" but we just call them "marriages".

If you gave me or the world evidence that a Christian God somehow is true, then I'll beileve in God. It's irrevalent that I am unable to disprove God, you can't disprove a negative in the first place. We can only work with what we know is true, the exsistance of God is unproven.

You also seem to not understand how the use of bigot is applied.

Bigot
 

engineereeyore

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2005
2,070
0
0
Sorry Tab, but you, like many others, have serious problems with calling people bigots. You call me a bigot because according to your definition, I am "a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own." And as I'm sure you know, intolerant means "Unable or unwilling to endure or support." So I'm a bigot because I'm "unable to support" an "opinion differing from my own." In this case, homosexual marriage.

Are you even there? Do you not understand what you're saying? Look up the work "oxymoron." Due to the fact that I won't accept YOUR belief in no God and homosexual marriage, I am a bigot. But because YOU won't accept MY belief in God and heterosexual marriage, you are "not a bigot?" What you're saying makes no sense. It's completely contradicting. Whether you or conjur believe the "line" is old and worn out doesn't make a difference. You can't call me a bigot for holding to my beliefs without incriminating yourself. You're just as guilty of holding to your belief.
 

Legend

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2005
2,254
1
0
Why would I want science to back it up? Science as we understand it is imperfect. Constantly changing.

And why would we want to believe in religion. Contantly changing. First it's stuff like Greek Mythology and then there's several versions of christianity. Hell, the old testament God is a prick. We suppress women and condone slavery, now we don't. God goes from a tyrannical bastard to an all forgiving being.
 

Legend

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2005
2,254
1
0
so weak that you can't answer it?

does the Goverment, a.k.a. the people, have the right to regulate marriage? if it does where can it draw the lines.

Polygamy has a much longer history and tradition then same-sex marriage, there are groups actively pushing for it. Yet we have banned it. Does the government have the right to do that?

Weak because it has absolutely nothing to do with same-sex marriage. You're trying to package same-sex marriage with all possible forms of marriage that is now not considered legit.
 

Legend

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2005
2,254
1
0
Sorry Tab, but you, like many others, have serious problems with calling people bigots. You call me a bigot because according to your definition, I am "a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own." And as I'm sure you know, intolerant means "Unable or unwilling to endure or support." So I'm a bigot because I'm "unable to support" an "opinion differing from my own." In this case, homosexual marriage.

Are you even there? Do you not understand what you're saying? Look up the work "oxymoron." Due to the fact that I won't accept YOUR belief in no God and homosexual marriage, I am a bigot. But because YOU won't accept MY belief in God and heterosexual marriage, you are "not a bigot?" What you're saying makes no sense. It's completely contradicting. Whether you or conjur believe the "line" is old and worn out doesn't make a difference. You can't call me a bigot for holding to my beliefs without incriminating yourself. You're just as guilty of holding to your belief.

Tab's beliefs do not suppress the rights of other people that do not share his beliefs. Your beliefs do.
 

engineereeyore

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2005
2,070
0
0
Originally posted by: Legend
Why would I want science to back it up? Science as we understand it is imperfect. Constantly changing.

And why would we want to believe in religion. Contantly changing. First it's stuff like Greek Mythology and then there's several versions of christianity. Hell, the old testament God is a prick. We suppress women and condone slavery, now we don't. God goes from a tyrannical bastard to an all forgiving being.


I think you have "religion changing" and "men changing" confused. Every example you gave was exactly what religion is, the belief in a higher being. That didn't change in any of your examples. The way MEN viewed religion or practiced religion has changed. Don't blame man's problems on God. It's not his fault that people have screwed it up sometimes. Actually, quite often now that I think about it. Whole middle ages thing was quite interesting.

Tab's beliefs do not suppress the rights of other people that do not share his beliefs. Your beliefs do.

If a homosexual couple wants live together, they can. If they want to find a preacher to marry them, they can. They have that right, as part of their liberty. If they then stand up and demand, as a minority, that we, the majority, MUST acknowledge their union, they are violating MY right. Matter of fact, they're violating the exact right that allowed them to marry in the first place.

Oh, and if you can find the word "suppress" in the definition of bigot, I would love to see it. Though thank you Tab for that definition. I found this part especialy interesting.

Bigotry is not "intolerance," but "unreasonable intolerance". For example, some Jews may be intolerant of Nazi Anti-Semitism; that doesn't necessarily make them anti-Nazi bigots.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Sorry Tab, but you, like many others, have serious problems with calling people bigots. You call me a bigot because according to your definition, I am "a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from their own." And as I'm sure you know, intolerant means "Unable or unwilling to endure or support." So I'm a bigot because I'm "unable to support" an "opinion differing from my own." In this case, homosexual marriage.

Are you even there? Do you not understand what you're saying? Look up the work "oxymoron." Due to the fact that I won't accept YOUR belief in no God and homosexual marriage, I am a bigot. But because YOU won't accept MY belief in God and heterosexual marriage, you are "not a bigot?" What you're saying makes no sense. It's completely contradicting. Whether you or conjur believe the "line" is old and worn out doesn't make a difference. You can't call me a bigot for holding to my beliefs without incriminating yourself. You're just as guilty of holding to your belief.

Actually, I don't see a problem with calling someone such as yourself a bigot. You are a bigot, you don't want homosexsual couples to have a non-religious married simply because they are homosexsual.

I am not intolerant of any religious folk.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: Legend
Why would I want science to back it up? Science as we understand it is imperfect. Constantly changing.

And why would we want to believe in religion. Contantly changing. First it's stuff like Greek Mythology and then there's several versions of christianity. Hell, the old testament God is a prick. We suppress women and condone slavery, now we don't. God goes from a tyrannical bastard to an all forgiving being.


I think you have "religion changing" and "men changing" confused. Every example you gave was exactly what religion is, the belief in a higher being. That didn't change in any of your examples. The way MEN viewed religion or practiced religion has changed. Don't blame man's problems on God. It's not his fault that people have screwed it up sometimes. Actually, quite often now that I think about it. Whole middle ages thing was quite interesting.

Tab's beliefs do not suppress the rights of other people that do not share his beliefs. Your beliefs do.

If a homosexual couple wants live together, they can. If they want to find a preacher to marry them, they can. They have that right, as part of their liberty. If they then stand up and demand, as a minority, that we, the majority, MUST acknowledge their union, they are violating MY right. Matter of fact, they're violating the exact right that allowed them to marry in the first place.

Oh, and if you can find the word "suppress" in the definition of bigot, I would love to see it. Though thank you Tab for that definition. I found this part especialy interesting.

Bigotry is not "intolerance," but "unreasonable intolerance". For example, some Jews may be intolerant of Nazi Anti-Semitism; that doesn't necessarily make them anti-Nazi bigots.

Please, cite your sources. Your blankly copying from the wikipedia article.

I find that part interesting to, I am not bigoted. I don't hate Christian becauses they are simply "christian" I hate them because of religous war and the murder that has been done in the name of god.

No, the majority doesn't have to accept crap, we are in a constinutional republic. The majority NEVER oversteps the rights over others. You need to re-read the thread again.
 

Legend

Platinum Member
Apr 21, 2005
2,254
1
0
I think you have "religion changing" and "men changing" confused. Every example you gave was exactly what religion is, the belief in a higher being. That didn't change in any of your examples. The way MEN viewed religion or practiced religion has changed. Don't blame man's problems on God. It's not his fault that people have screwed it up sometimes. Actually, quite often now that I think about it. Whole middle ages thing was quite interesting.

Likewise Science has never changed, just man's perception of it.


They have that right, as part of their liberty. If they then stand up and demand, as a minority, that we, the majority, MUST acknowledge their union, they are violating MY right. Matter of fact, they're violating the exact right that allowed them to marry in the first place.

Just what right is that? The right to control other people's rights? Because if you give them the right to marry, that's their right. Legal recognition is part of that right, regardless of how much you people loathe it.

You can have your beliefs, but they do not influence the rights of others. Slaves were freed because it was their right, not the will of the masses. Women were given the right to vote because it's their right, not the will of the masses. And in the near future, homosexuals will be given their rights because it is theirs, and not the will of the masses.
 

engineereeyore

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2005
2,070
0
0
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Oh, and if you can find the word "suppress" in the definition of bigot, I would love to see it. Though thank you Tab for that definition. I found this part especialy interesting.

Bigotry is not "intolerance," but "unreasonable intolerance". For example, some Jews may be intolerant of Nazi Anti-Semitism; that doesn't necessarily make them anti-Nazi bigots.

Please, cite your sources. Your blankly copying from the wikipedia article.

umm, Tab, definition. Sorry if you can put those two together.

I find that part interesting to, I am not bigoted. I don't hate Christian becauses they are simply "christian" I hate them because of religous war and the murder that has been done in the name of god.

I'm glad you do. I would find it pretty scary if you didn't feel that what they did at that time was horrible. Matter of fact, I think I mentioned an example of that. Something about the middle ages. That is exactly why I would never associate with such a religion. However, as stated before, don't blame man's problems on God.
 

SMOGZINN

Lifer
Jun 17, 2005
14,359
4,639
136
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Government has a huge interest in families.

I agree with you, but I think they should not.


Know what the most common factor of inmates is? they don't have fathers (or fathers that stick around).


This really proves nothing, and I really doubt your claim. I am pretty certain that the most common factor of inmates would be having committed a crime, but even if we accept your claim it still does not really mean anything, it is just another stat. Here is some stats for you, they seem to be just as, if not more, significant:

90% of all Americans in prison are male.
Nearly 50% of them are African American.
More then 60% of all inmates in American prisons are in for drug related crimes.

Do you really think that not having a father around is more common then those?

Going back to pre-civil war days, there was an effort by plantation owners to break up slave families to make them weaker and easier to control.

Once again this does not really lend much support to your argument. I would guess that they broke up slave families so as to reduce the maternal/paternal instincts from causing problems. They did not always break up slave families, and those families were still slaves. So being a family did not give them the strength to overthrow their masters.


it is better for kids to grow up in a structured, unchanging enviroment.

This is has some truth to it, but marriage does not create a structured, unchanging environment. That can only come from the character of the parent(s), and that can not be influenced by paying a tax or getting a license.

I've watached slow as a friends daughter live with her mom as she bounces to boyfriend to boyfriend - the boyfriends aren't terriable (no drug dealers). But not having that security has effected here.

This is your proof that marriage works? Did you think that maybe it is the character of the mom that is the problem, and not the lack of a marriage? Perhaps she should not 'bounces to boyfriend to boyfriend?' She does not need to be married to decide to put her personal life on the back burner for her daughter.

People who are married and have kids are more likely to stick togather, as opposed to those who have kids that are not in a marriage. Intact families tend to contribute better to society.

I would like to see the study that shows this. I have seen studies that show that marriages with out kids tend to end faster, but I can not remember any study that stated that a couple that had kids would stick together longer if they were married as opposed to a couple with kids that were not married. They study would have to take into account is they planned to have kids, because we already know that a couple that has kids that they were not expecting is considerably more likely to end faster.


so the government does have an interest in marriage.

And it should abandon that interest.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Oh, and if you can find the word "suppress" in the definition of bigot, I would love to see it. Though thank you Tab for that definition. I found this part especialy interesting.

Bigotry is not "intolerance," but "unreasonable intolerance". For example, some Jews may be intolerant of Nazi Anti-Semitism; that doesn't necessarily make them anti-Nazi bigots.

Please, cite your sources. Your blankly copying from the wikipedia article.

umm, Tab, definition. Sorry if you can put those two together.

I find that part interesting to, I am not bigoted. I don't hate Christian becauses they are simply "christian" I hate them because of religous war and the murder that has been done in the name of god.

I see you have properly cited that, sorry.

Why would I blame problems on something that doesn't exsist?

A great thing about Christianity is that all you have to do is change a couple words around to support your own beilefs and it's still "Christian". Christianity, is nothing more than a bunch of stories.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Whatever Tab. Deny or justify it however you want. You're as guilty as I am.

How can I deny something that doesn't exsist? There isn't any scientific evidence that a creater such as god exsists or something so absurb such as sin.
 

engineereeyore

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2005
2,070
0
0
Originally posted by: Legend
Likewise Science has never changed, just man's perception of it.

Exactly. So why believe that the answers we have today are the be all and end of knowledge and understanding. Any chance we might actually "change" our scientific stance on a few things as time goes on? ;)


Originally posted by: engineereeyoreThey have that right, as part of their liberty. If they then stand up and demand, as a minority, that we, the majority, MUST acknowledge their union, they are violating MY right. Matter of fact, they're violating the exact right that allowed them to marry in the first place.

Just what right is that? The right to control other people's rights? Because if you give them the right to marry, that's their right. Legal recognition is part of that right, regardless of how much you people loathe it.

Well, if you hadn't deleted the part before, you'd see that I said they had the right to do whatever they wanted, even get married. Your attempt to make me out as the bad guy has failed.

You can have your beliefs, but they do not influence the rights of others. Slaves were freed because it was their right, not the will of the masses. Women were given the right to vote because it's their right, not the will of the masses. And in the near future, homosexuals will be given their rights because it is theirs, and not the will of the masses.

Um, you might want to read this. (look, I'm "citing" it)

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/alhtml/almintr.html

Ok, slavery issue down. Looks like Lincoln did wait for a majority.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/womenstimeline1.html

Look at the time line. Women's right evolved, it didn't just happen. Once enough states adopted amendments, voted for by the MAJORITY, the US government began drafting laws for the entire country.

Don't get me wrong. I understand and see you point. And believe it or not, a actually agree that many things are wrong with the way that gays are treated. Take power of attorney for instance. Any man or woman, gay or not, has the right to be able to allow anyone they wish to have power of attorney. That's bullcrap. And insurance. Insurance is run through companies. The government has not right to be able to tell any company who they can and can't provide insurance for. That's the companies decision. These two ideas are the exact reason that I voted against, yes, against, the anit-gay amendment in my state. I think these things need to be fixed, and soon.

However, sorry, not going to bend on the marriage thing. I'm proud to be a bigot. ;)
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: SMOGZINN
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Government has a huge interest in families.

I agree with you, but I think they should not.


Know what the most common factor of inmates is? they don't have fathers (or fathers that stick around).


This really proves nothing, and I really doubt your claim. I am pretty certain that the most common factor of inmates would be having committed a crime, but even if we accept your claim it still does not really mean anything, it is just another stat. Here is some stats for you, they seem to be just as, if not more, significant:

90% of all Americans in prison are male.
Nearly 50% of them are African American.
More then 60% of all inmates in American prisons are in for drug related crimes.

Do you really think that not having a father around is more common then those?

Going back to pre-civil war days, there was an effort by plantation owners to break up slave families to make them weaker and easier to control.

Once again this does not really lend much support to your argument. I would guess that they broke up slave families so as to reduce the maternal/paternal instincts from causing problems. They did not always break up slave families, and those families were still slaves. So being a family did not give them the strength to overthrow their masters.


it is better for kids to grow up in a structured, unchanging enviroment.

This is has some truth to it, but marriage does not create a structured, unchanging environment. That can only come from the character of the parent(s), and that can not be influenced by paying a tax or getting a license.

I've watached slow as a friends daughter live with her mom as she bounces to boyfriend to boyfriend - the boyfriends aren't terriable (no drug dealers). But not having that security has effected here.

This is your proof that marriage works? Did you think that maybe it is the character of the mom that is the problem, and not the lack of a marriage? Perhaps she should not 'bounces to boyfriend to boyfriend?' She does not need to be married to decide to put her personal life on the back burner for her daughter.

People who are married and have kids are more likely to stick togather, as opposed to those who have kids that are not in a marriage. Intact families tend to contribute better to society.

I would like to see the study that shows this. I have seen studies that show that marriages with out kids tend to end faster, but I can not remember any study that stated that a couple that had kids would stick together longer if they were married as opposed to a couple with kids that were not married. They study would have to take into account is they planned to have kids, because we already know that a couple that has kids that they were not expecting is considerably more likely to end faster.


so the government does have an interest in marriage.

And it should abandon that interest.


Is marriage good or bad for families?
 

engineereeyore

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2005
2,070
0
0
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Whatever Tab. Deny or justify it however you want. You're as guilty as I am.

How can I deny something that doesn't exsist? There isn't any scientific evidence that a creater such as god exsists or something so absurb such as sin.

That was about denying being a bigot. Why would I think you're guilty of believing in God when you've stated you don't? I do believe that you don't believe in God.
 

engineereeyore

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2005
2,070
0
0
Originally posted by: shrumpage

People who are married and have kids are more likely to stick togather, as opposed to those who have kids that are not in a marriage. Intact families tend to contribute better to society.

I would like to see the study that shows this. I have seen studies that show that marriages with out kids tend to end faster, but I can not remember any study that stated that a couple that had kids would stick together longer if they were married as opposed to a couple with kids that were not married. They study would have to take into account is they planned to have kids, because we already know that a couple that has kids that they were not expecting is considerably more likely to end faster.

I think this is what shrumpage was referencing, or something similar.

http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/facts/a0028317.cfm
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Marriage is a good thing, something that should be applied to familes of races and sexsuality.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
76
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Whatever Tab. Deny or justify it however you want. You're as guilty as I am.

How can I deny something that doesn't exsist? There isn't any scientific evidence that a creater such as god exsists or something so absurb such as sin.

That was about denying being a bigot. Why would I think you're guilty of believing in God when you've stated you don't? I do believe that you don't believe in God.

I am not a bigot, I am not intoralent of your beilefs. I am not taking away the rights and privildges of anyone else such as you are.