What exactly is the argument against Gay Marriage?

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Tab
No, it's not discrimination you are not *soley* banning people because of their sex.

No, you're *soley* banning people because of their relationship. How is that different?

No, you are not. You banning incestous because of the vastly negative effects it has on indiviuals.

I find it absolutely hypocrtical that you can't get even get a single good agruement agaisnt gay marraige.

Ok, so the same question, if someone is mentally handicapped it can have the same negative effects on their children as a incestuous couple. Is it therefore legal to prohibit them from getting married also?

I find it hypocritical that you claim to fight for the right to allow anyone to marry whoever they want and yet you won't fight for this group. Your whole argument, in and of itself, is a contradiction. The very law you claim supports your belief actually contradicts you belief. Is marriage for everyone as you claim, or is it for a simply "larger" group of people, as you also claim? You should really make up your mind.

Good argument? LOL. Whatever. You're ONLY argument is a contradiction.

 

[engineereeyore]

Ok Moonbeam, which is it?

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The laws prohibiting such marriage would probably not be ruled unconstitutional as they relate to protecting the genetic health of children and don't really discriminate.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't care if you marry your Mother or your Brother or both and want to make all of of them legal. But the state can discriminate and make laws that discriminate so long as it's not based on race color or gender. So laws that discriminate on the bases of relationship or number are legal and those that discriminate on gender are not. It is really pretty simple. We live in a country that believed that God gave people rights and they were born with them. One we've decided over time we were born with is the right not to be discriminated against based on race color or gender. You may not like it but that's a fact from God we call self evident. I told you the one you call God is a bigot and not the real God.

Is it ok then to discriminate, or not? I'm slightly confused by your comments.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Tab
No, it's not discrimination you are not *soley* banning people because of their sex.

No, you're *soley* banning people because of their relationship. How is that different?

No, you are not. You banning incestous because of the vastly negative effects it has on indiviuals.

I find it absolutely hypocrtical that you can't get even get a single good agruement agaisnt gay marraige.

Ok, so the same question, if someone is mentally handicapped it can have the same negative effects on their children as a incestuous couple. Is it therefore legal to prohibit them from getting married also?

I find it hypocritical that you claim to fight for the right to allow anyone to marry whoever they want and yet you won't fight for this group. Your whole argument, in and of itself, is a contradiction. The very law you claim supports your belief actually contradicts you belief. Is marriage for everyone as you claim, or is it for a simply "larger" group of people, as you also claim? You should really make up your mind.

Good argument? LOL. Whatever. You're ONLY argument is a contradiction.

Disabled invidiuvals that have sex don't involve the abuse that incestous relationships 99.9% of the time have. It generally invovles some nutcase father doing his daughter. Now you're saying someone could have a real incestous marraige right? Well, I am sure someone could smoke crack and not do anything violent.

You have yet to point out any inconsistant agruements. Your agruement is nothing but a Strawman, a logical fallacy.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Tab

Disabled invidiuvals that have sex don't involve the abuse that incestous relationships 99.9% of the time have. It generally invovles some nutcase father doing his daughter. Now you're saying someone could have a real incestous marraige right? Well, I am sure someone could smoke crack and not do anything violent.

You have yet to point out any inconsistant agruements. Your agruement is nothing but a Strawman, a logical fallacy.

Ok, so let's change it again and say that we're not allowing the marriages because of possible domestic abuse. Again, are we to prevent any that we think "might" get into a domestic dispute from getting married? If we're going to prevent them from getting married on these grounds, we would then have to prevent any other groups of people who have a history of domestic abuse from getting married also. After all, we must treat all people equally.

Just so you know, it's "argument," not "arguement." There's no "e."

Your inconsistant arguments started a while back, something about being a "bigot." I see they haven't gotten any better.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Ok Moonbeam, which is it?

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The laws prohibiting such marriage would probably not be ruled unconstitutional as they relate to protecting the genetic health of children and don't really discriminate.

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I don't care if you marry your Mother or your Brother or both and want to make all of of them legal. But the state can discriminate and make laws that discriminate so long as it's not based on race color or gender. So laws that discriminate on the bases of relationship or number are legal and those that discriminate on gender are not. It is really pretty simple. We live in a country that believed that God gave people rights and they were born with them. One we've decided over time we were born with is the right not to be discriminated against based on race color or gender. You may not like it but that's a fact from God we call self evident. I told you the one you call God is a bigot and not the real God.

Is it ok then to discriminate, or not? I'm slightly confused by your comments.

We wouldn't last five minutes if we didn't discriminate. We discriminate between a hole in the ground and a sidewalk. We discriminate between an egg and a scorpion. Our talent as an intelligent ape is to discriminate. We do it with such ease and capacity that we had to be careful it didn't get us in trouble cause we want to discriminate till the only thing that passes muster is us. That's why we gotta remind ourselves that God loves all the same. Sadly we discriminate so bad we discovered quite young that we were worthless and never measured up. That's why we spend all our time trying to tell others they are undeserving too.

So our greatest and most pronounced talent is the thing that also makes us sinners cause we discriminate about stuff it's wrong to discriminate about. That's why it's so tempting to let a book tell you what is right. But I think the only way is to listen to your own loving heart if you can find it under all the tons of cabbage we had dumped on us.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Tab

Disabled invidiuvals that have sex don't involve the abuse that incestous relationships 99.9% of the time have. It generally invovles some nutcase father doing his daughter. Now you're saying someone could have a real incestous marraige right? Well, I am sure someone could smoke crack and not do anything violent.

You have yet to point out any inconsistant agruements. Your agruement is nothing but a Strawman, a logical fallacy.

Ok, so let's change it again and say that we're not allowing the marriages because of possible domestic abuse. Again, are we to prevent any that we think "might" get into a domestic dispute from getting married? If we're going to prevent them from getting married on these grounds, we would then have to prevent any other groups of people who have a history of domestic abuse from getting married also. After all, we must treat all people equally.

Just so you know, it's "argument," not "arguement." There's no "e."

Your inconsistant arguments started a while back, something about being a "bigot." I see they haven't gotten any better.

Yes? What's your point? We're able to find out that 99.9% of the time domestic abuse does occur with these relationship. Gay Marriage is reasonable, incest is not.
I see you've taking points from Deudalus, nice find kid.

 

[sudynim]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: sudynim
Hi y'all,

Interesting conversation thus far. Forgive me if it has already been asked, but I've seen people mention that all consenting adults should be able to enter into marriage.

Would that mean that incestous marriages between an adult son and an adult mother be ok then?

The laws prohibiting such marriage would probably not be ruled unconstitutional as they relate to protecting the genetic health of children and don't really discriminate.

Hmm, interesting points! ...Would it be considered discrimination based on blood/genetic relations?
That begs the question: Would it be lawful then to have non-blood/genetic related, consenting adult, family members marrying each other?
Like say, a Step-father and his step daughter, or adopted son and mother.

Just something I'm pondering...looking forward to your thoughts. :thumbsup:

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Tab

Yes? What's your point? We're able to find out that 99.9% of the time domestic abuse does occur with these relationship. Gay Marriage is reasonable, incest is not.
I see you've taking points from Deudalus, nice find kid.

Domestic abuse is a situation to be handled by the police. It is not a legitimate reason to deny marriage to people. For instance, nearly 1/3 of American women report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives (abuse).
At exactly what percentage should we start preventing marriages or even relationships? 33%, 50%, or does it have to be more? According to statistics, 58% of american male that contracted AIDS where homosexual (AIDS). Is that high enough to cause concern, or should we just ignore that?

Stats change, and basing a law upon stats would be basically saying "we're not sure whether it's right or wrong, we'll just see how many people are in violation and use that to make our decision." Although that may be a great way to base ones individual ideas, a government needs a foundation. We can't just say stealing is against the law if say, 25% of American steal. It just doesn't work that way.

Good stat though. I honestly had no idea it was that high.

 

[sudynim]

Political and religious beliefs aside, something that I've also been pondering about is why gays have to have the term "marriage" in their commited relationship/unions.
Why can't they just call it something else? (instead of calling it something that is already there.)

I mean--to me and this might be a flawed example--if you have a vehicle with a large, open containing area in the back and it has four wheels, you call it a truck right?

And then you have these people come along and say, "Hey, we have this vehicle and it's like a truck, and it has four wheels and it's a v8, but it has an enclosed trunk area/compartment...but we want to call it a 'truck'."

And you say, "Well, that's nice, but it's not a "truck", why don't you call it an "SUV"?"

And they're like, "No, we want to call it a truck."

To me that's what gay marriages are like. Just people coming along and trying to change the definition of what something already is.
So, my argument, though it's rather weak, (and perhaps silly :laugh: ) is "Gays, just get a new term for your union if you guys want it so bad."

And I mean, of course anyone can make the argument that what if another group comes alongs and wants to define their hatch-back motor vehicle as a truck (or even an SUV). Yeah, perhaps, that could happen too, but if those people have their own category then the people who have trucks and the people who have SUVs won't be offended (they'll even be protected:thumbsup: )

And hence, people who might have their own personal, religious, and political beliefs on what marriage is won't have their right infringed upon. Sure, I mean, they might not be too happy with this new type of union, but it doesn't encroach on their ground of what they consider something "sacred."

 

[engineereeyore]

Sounds like a good idea sudynim, and I definitely wouldn't call your argument weak.

 

[Tab]

When specific relationships involve domestic abuse 99.9% of the time are you going to legalize them?

AIDS is no longer a death sentance and I personally wouldn't want people that have AIDS to have kids. For that matter women that smoke/drink while pregant, but how in the hell are you suppose to force that?

Hell, I could apply you what you're saying to Meth or Crack. Not everyone who uses it will become an addicitve violent idiot, it's just 99.9% make the .1% look bad.

You have yet to give any real reason why gay marriage should be illegal. The issuse of gay-marriage, polygamy and incest are all seperate and independent. All your using is the Slippery Slope fallacy.

All you're saying is "If gay-marriage shouild remain illegal or polygamy and incestoul relationship will become legal as well".

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: sudynim
Political and religious beliefs aside, something that I've also been pondering about is why gays have to have the term "marriage" in their commited relationship/unions.
Why can't they just call it something else? (instead of calling it something that is already there.)

I mean--to me and this might be a flawed example--if you have a vehicle with a large, open containing area in the back and it has four wheels, you call it a truck right?

And then you have these people come along and say, "Hey, we have this vehicle and it's like a truck, and it has four wheels and it's a v8, but it has an enclosed trunk area/compartment...but we want to call it a 'truck'."

And you say, "Well, that's nice, but it's not a "truck", why don't you call it an "SUV"?"

And they're like, "No, we want to call it a truck."

To me that's what gay marriages are like. Just people coming along and trying to change the definition of what something already is.
So, my argument, though it's rather weak, (and perhaps silly :laugh: ) is "Gays, just get a new term for your union if you guys want it so bad."

And I mean, of course anyone can make the argument that what if another group comes alongs and wants to define their hatch-back motor vehicle as a truck (or even an SUV). Yeah, perhaps, that could happen too, but if those people have their own category then the people who have trucks and the people who have SUVs won't be offended (they'll even be protected:thumbsup: )

And hence, people who might have their own personal, religious, and political beliefs on what marriage is won't have their right infringed upon. Sure, I mean, they might not be too happy with this new type of union, but it doesn't encroach on their ground of what they consider something "sacred."

Your favoritism for the term marriage is there because of what marriage connotes so you prefer to keep the word and ask gays to get another. But they prefer the word marriage because of what it connotes. So doesn't it make sense that Christians, with their call for abnegation and self sacrifice, take the short stick on this one? It would be, well, Christian.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: sudynim
Political and religious beliefs aside, something that I've also been pondering about is why gays have to have the term "marriage" in their commited relationship/unions.
Why can't they just call it something else? (instead of calling it something that is already there.)

I mean--to me and this might be a flawed example--if you have a vehicle with a large, open containing area in the back and it has four wheels, you call it a truck right?

And then you have these people come along and say, "Hey, we have this vehicle and it's like a truck, and it has four wheels and it's a v8, but it has an enclosed trunk area/compartment...but we want to call it a 'truck'."

And you say, "Well, that's nice, but it's not a "truck", why don't you call it an "SUV"?"

And they're like, "No, we want to call it a truck."

To me that's what gay marriages are like. Just people coming along and trying to change the definition of what something already is.
So, my argument, though it's rather weak, (and perhaps silly :laugh: ) is "Gays, just get a new term for your union if you guys want it so bad."

And I mean, of course anyone can make the argument that what if another group comes alongs and wants to define their hatch-back motor vehicle as a truck (or even an SUV). Yeah, perhaps, that could happen too, but if those people have their own category then the people who have trucks and the people who have SUVs won't be offended (they'll even be protected:thumbsup: )

And hence, people who might have their own personal, religious, and political beliefs on what marriage is won't have their right infringed upon. Sure, I mean, they might not be too happy with this new type of union, but it doesn't encroach on their ground of what they consider something "sacred."

Your favoritism for the term marriage is there because of what marriage connotes so you prefer to keep the word and ask gays to get another. But they prefer the word marriage because of what it connotes. So doesn't it make sense that Christians, with their call for abnegation and self sacrifice, take the short stick on this one? It would be, well, Christian.

So, you're saying both parties have a different view on marriage. Then, you're saying that being christian involves sacrafice and they should sacrifice their views on marriage for the good of others?

 

[sudynim]

I said, religious beliefs aside, whether you come from a Christian or Agnostic or Atheist background, I just don't think it's right for another group to come in and demand to change a definition of an institution so that it can fit their needs. And to my knowledge I don't think Christians are the only ones who use the definition of man and woman in a union. (Though, they certainly make it known.)

Why don't they just just demand something NEW to define what they need? They can even demand the same benefits (whatever they may be.) It wouldn't require a sacrifice for anyone with this solution and they would even have this new type of union protected, lest other groups like asexuals, bisexuals, trisexuals (j/k ) want to take the name of the gays' new union.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: sudynim
Political and religious beliefs aside, something that I've also been pondering about is why gays have to have the term "marriage" in their commited relationship/unions.
Why can't they just call it something else? (instead of calling it something that is already there.)

I mean--to me and this might be a flawed example--if you have a vehicle with a large, open containing area in the back and it has four wheels, you call it a truck right?

And then you have these people come along and say, "Hey, we have this vehicle and it's like a truck, and it has four wheels and it's a v8, but it has an enclosed trunk area/compartment...but we want to call it a 'truck'."

And you say, "Well, that's nice, but it's not a "truck", why don't you call it an "SUV"?"

And they're like, "No, we want to call it a truck."

To me that's what gay marriages are like. Just people coming along and trying to change the definition of what something already is.
So, my argument, though it's rather weak, (and perhaps silly :laugh: ) is "Gays, just get a new term for your union if you guys want it so bad."

And I mean, of course anyone can make the argument that what if another group comes alongs and wants to define their hatch-back motor vehicle as a truck (or even an SUV). Yeah, perhaps, that could happen too, but if those people have their own category then the people who have trucks and the people who have SUVs won't be offended (they'll even be protected:thumbsup: )

And hence, people who might have their own personal, religious, and political beliefs on what marriage is won't have their right infringed upon. Sure, I mean, they might not be too happy with this new type of union, but it doesn't encroach on their ground of what they consider something "sacred."

Your favoritism for the term marriage is there because of what marriage connotes so you prefer to keep the word and ask gays to get another. But they prefer the word marriage because of what it connotes. So doesn't it make sense that Christians, with their call for abnegation and self sacrifice, take the short stick on this one? It would be, well, Christian.

So, you're saying both parties have a different view on marriage. Then, you're saying that being christian involves sacrafice and they should sacrifice their views on marriage for the good of others?

No, I am saying that both want to use the same word for the same thing in the same way and the idea that gays should use a different word for the sake of Christians is as absurd as the notion that Christians even with their well established selflessness would give up marriage to gays.

Originally posted by: sudynim
I said, religious beliefs aside, whether you come from a Christian or Agnostic or Atheist background, I just don't think it's right for another group to come in and demand to change a definition of an institution so that it can fit their needs. And to my knowledge I don't think Christians are the only ones who use the definition of man and woman in a union. (Though, they certainly make it known.)

Why don't they just just demand something NEW to define what they need? They can even demand the same benefits (whatever they may be.) It wouldn't require a sacrifice for anyone with this solution and they would even have this new type of union protected, lest other groups like asexuals, bisexuals, trisexuals (j/k ) want to take the name of the gays' new union.

Why don't blacks eat in their own places and sit in the back of the bus and drink from black fountains. It's the same food the same journey and the same water. Why do they DEMAND to change the definition of white only.

--------------------------------

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: sudynim
Political and religious beliefs aside, something that I've also been pondering about is why gays have to have the term "marriage" in their commited relationship/unions.
Why can't they just call it something else? (instead of calling it something that is already there.)

I mean--to me and this might be a flawed example--if you have a vehicle with a large, open containing area in the back and it has four wheels, you call it a truck right?

And then you have these people come along and say, "Hey, we have this vehicle and it's like a truck, and it has four wheels and it's a v8, but it has an enclosed trunk area/compartment...but we want to call it a 'truck'."

And you say, "Well, that's nice, but it's not a "truck", why don't you call it an "SUV"?"

And they're like, "No, we want to call it a truck."

To me that's what gay marriages are like. Just people coming along and trying to change the definition of what something already is.
So, my argument, though it's rather weak, (and perhaps silly :laugh: ) is "Gays, just get a new term for your union if you guys want it so bad."

And I mean, of course anyone can make the argument that what if another group comes alongs and wants to define their hatch-back motor vehicle as a truck (or even an SUV). Yeah, perhaps, that could happen too, but if those people have their own category then the people who have trucks and the people who have SUVs won't be offended (they'll even be protected:thumbsup: )

And hence, people who might have their own personal, religious, and political beliefs on what marriage is won't have their right infringed upon. Sure, I mean, they might not be too happy with this new type of union, but it doesn't encroach on their ground of what they consider something "sacred."

Your favoritism for the term marriage is there because of what marriage connotes so you prefer to keep the word and ask gays to get another. But they prefer the word marriage because of what it connotes. So doesn't it make sense that Christians, with their call for abnegation and self sacrifice, take the short stick on this one? It would be, well, Christian.

So, you're saying both parties have a different view on marriage. Then, you're saying that being christian involves sacrafice and they should sacrifice their views on marriage for the good of others?

No, I am saying that both want to use the same word for the same thing in the same way and the idea that gays should use a different word for the sake of Christians is as absurd as the notion that Christians even with their well established selflessness would give up marriage to gays.

 

[dpm]

Originally posted by: sudynim
Political and religious beliefs aside, something that I've also been pondering about is why gays have to have the term "marriage" in their commited relationship/unions.
Why can't they just call it something else? (instead of calling it something that is already there.)

I mean--to me and this might be a flawed example--if you have a vehicle with a large, open containing area in the back and it has four wheels, you call it a truck right?

And then you have these people come along and say, "Hey, we have this vehicle and it's like a truck, and it has four wheels and it's a v8, but it has an enclosed trunk area/compartment...but we want to call it a 'truck'."

And you say, "Well, that's nice, but it's not a "truck", why don't you call it an "SUV"?"

And they're like, "No, we want to call it a truck."

To me that's what gay marriages are like. Just people coming along and trying to change the definition of what something already is.
So, my argument, though it's rather weak, (and perhaps silly :laugh: ) is "Gays, just get a new term for your union if you guys want it so bad."

And I mean, of course anyone can make the argument that what if another group comes alongs and wants to define their hatch-back motor vehicle as a truck (or even an SUV). Yeah, perhaps, that could happen too, but if those people have their own category then the people who have trucks and the people who have SUVs won't be offended (they'll even be protected:thumbsup: )

And hence, people who might have their own personal, religious, and political beliefs on what marriage is won't have their right infringed upon. Sure, I mean, they might not be too happy with this new type of union, but it doesn't encroach on their ground of what they consider something "sacred."

I hate to break it to you, but, legally, an SUV is classified as a truck.

Sadly, this subject doesn't lend itself too well to simile

 

[totalcommand]

Originally posted by: sudynim
I said, religious beliefs aside, whether you come from a Christian or Agnostic or Atheist background, I just don't think it's right for another group to come in and demand to change a definition of an institution so that it can fit their needs. And to my knowledge I don't think Christians are the only ones who use the definition of man and woman in a union. (Though, they certainly make it known.)

Why don't they just just demand something NEW to define what they need? They can even demand the same benefits (whatever they may be.) It wouldn't require a sacrifice for anyone with this solution and they would even have this new type of union protected, lest other groups like asexuals, bisexuals, trisexuals (j/k ) want to take the name of the gays' new union.

Let's see, what is an "institution"?

A: "A custom, practice, relationship, or behavioral pattern of importance in the life of a community or society: the institutions of marriage and the family."

The marriage you're talking about is heavily defined by culture, and U.S. laws should not IMO favor one culture over another.

If anything, U.S. law should remove any reference to marriage and replace it by a third word, like "bondage".

Then you, Christians, gays, Jews, Atheists, neo-nazis, blacks, whites, yellows can come up with whatever synonym they want for partnership. I can give suggestions for each group if you would like.

But the fact is, the word marriage has become less about culture and more a matter of law. Marriage is much less an "institution" than you think it is. Hindus "marry", Buddhists "marry", atheists "marry", Muslims "marry", and each has a separate culture, and some of those cultures have no problem with homosexuality.

Blacks and whites marry. This sort of "institution" was never allowed in the U.S. till the 20th century - the "definition" of marriage had to be changed. Should blacks and whites have come up with a fourth name, like Civil Bond to avoid changing your definitions? You can't rely on culture for a definition of marriage.

I see no reason why gays should not be able to lay claim over "marry" when interracial couples are. Just face it, you have a problem with their culture, and think they are defiling yours when they call it "marriage".

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: aidanjm

These requirements are entirely independent:

1. marriage partners should not be closely genetically related
2. marriage partners should be of different gender

Whether or not to legalize same sex marriage (2) is a very different question than whether or not to eliminate requirements re: genetic relatedness. Legalising same-sex marriage doesn't invalidate existing prohibtions regarding genetic relatedness, i.e., fathers wouldn't be able to marry their sons, just as mothers can't marry their sons now.

FWIW I question whether incestuous couples actually exist, I've never seen a parent/ child or brother/ sister couple bemoaning their plight on talk shows, etc. The only example that is even remotely common is cousin/ cousin partnerships, and they aren't illegal in all jurisdictions anyway.

Actually, they're not different. The entire basis of it being unconstitution to prevent homosexuals from being married is that what is offered to one group of people must be offered to all others. According to your argument, I'm discriminating because I would put a restication on who can and can't be married based on their sex. Incest would be the same thing, just based on a different reason. If the 14th amendment does indeed guarantee the right of any two individuals to be married, then there is no difference between a homosexual couple and an incestuous couple wanting to marry. The very law that you say provides that right to homosexuals would also provide that right to incestuous couples. Whether said couples even exist is irrelevant. You're basically saying that it's ok because they're not fighting as hard, or loudly, as homosexuals. Though, for the record, there are many cases of incest in the country. Louisiana actually has a medical research location studing the effects of incest in one of the more promenent areas of incestuous activity. It's located in a town called Zowolle, if I remember correctly.

Don't seperate the issues because one serves your purpose and the other doesn't. Either marriage stays the way it is, or it is opened to anyone and everyone in whatever form. Otherwise, the 14th amendment violation claims are invalid.

The arguments for or against incestuous marriage are different to the arguments for or against same-sex marriage (or the arguments for or against polygamous marriages, etc). Whether or not to legalise incestuous marriage is a different question than whether or not to legalise homosexual marriage, and the two issues need to be decided separately. The state does not have the right to arbitrarily infringe on the rights and freedoms of individuals. There actually does need to be a good justification when the state denies a certain class of individuals access to something like marriage. The justifications the state would give (in a court case) for banning same-sex marriage are going to be entirely different than the justifications the state might give in banning polygamy or incestuous marriage. Separate justifications. Separate arguments. Separate issues. I don't have an opinion as to whether incestuous marriages, polygamous marriages, polyandrous marriages, etc. are desirable. However if there are people who want to agitate for incestuous marriage or polygamous marriage, then I won't be standing in their way. Whether or not incestuous couples actually exist is relevant. We don't legalise marriage between humans and pink unicorns, because pink unicorns don't exist. Legalising marriage between mothers and sons, sisters and brothers, etc. makes no sense if such couples don't exist or do not want to get married. Please provide a single example of a mother/ son couple or a sister/ brother couple who have stated, on the public record, that they wish to be able to marry. There are in fact many millions of gay couples in the US who are disadvantaged by not having access to the protections associated with marriage. I do think that is a more pressing issue to deal with that the vague possibility that there might be one or two mother/ son couples desperately wishing to marry somewhere in the usa. The issue of polygamous marriages is far more pressing a concern than incestuous marriages, there are in fact certain communities in the usa who do practice polygamy. Of course, the arguments against polygamy are different than the arguments against same-sex marriage.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: sudynim
Political and religious beliefs aside, something that I've also been pondering about is why gays have to have the term "marriage" in their commited relationship/unions.
Why can't they just call it something else? (instead of calling it something that is already there.)

Um, many gays would be quite happy with "civil unions" that offered equivalent legal protections. It is the religious right that insists that gays not only be deprived of marriage, but also have no access to any equivalent institution. The religious right sees civil unions as gay marriage by stealth. They worry that society will become comfortable with gays in civil unions, and that that will eventually lead to gay marriage. The religious right does not want same-sex relationships recognised formally by the government in ANY way- that means no hospital visitation rights, no property inheritance rights b/w couples, blah blah. It's funny that you put the blame on gays, as if gays are being just so terribly troublesome by not compromising and settling for civil unions. It's actually the religious right not willing to compromise one iota. There ar eplenty of gays who would be willing to go for civil unions, but I've never encountered a religious right anti-gay marriage crusader willing to allow for same-sex civil unions.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: sudynim
So, my argument, though it's rather weak, (and perhaps silly :laugh: ) is "Gays, just get a new term for your union if you guys want it so bad."

A related thought: african americans were once prevented from marrying at all in the usa, and then for quite some time they were prevented from marrying people of different genetic heritage. maybe blacks should have been required to get a new term for their unions? afterall, marriage is not an african tradition - what right do black people have to hijack the institution???

 

[Tommunist]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

Originally posted by: sudynim
Political and religious beliefs aside, something that I've also been pondering about is why gays have to have the term "marriage" in their commited relationship/unions.
Why can't they just call it something else? (instead of calling it something that is already there.)

Um, many gays would be quite happy with "civil unions" that offered equivalent legal protections. It is the religious right that insists that gays not only be deprived of marriage, but also have no access to any equivalent institution. The religious right sees civil unions as gay marriage by stealth. They worry that society will become comfortable with gays in civil unions, and that that will eventually lead to gay marriage. The religious right does not want gsame-sex marriages recognised in ANY way- that means no hospital visitation rights, no property inheritance rights b/w couples, blah blah. It's funny that you put the blame on gays, as if gays are being just so terribly troublesome by not compromising and settling for civil unions. It's actually the religious right not willing to compromise one iota.

bingo :thumbsup:

 

[engineereeyore]

Your agrument is still the same, a contradiction. You would critisize those against homosexual marriage for not allowing everyone to have the right to marry, yet you yourself are not trying to allow everyone the right to marry. You're just trying to enlarge the circle to fit those that you want to be included.

When interracial marriage was approved, it DID NOT change the definition of marriage. It changed the laws of the states as to who could get married, not the definition of marriage. Marriage has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman. That did not change, so that argument has no merit.

The argument that incest doesn't matter has no merit either. In 1967 when interracial marriages became legal, there were hardly any gay couple that wanted to get married. Why? Most of them were too afraid to come out. You think it's any different now for incestuous couples? It took homosexuals nearly 30 years before they even started taking big leaps towards trying to get marriage rights. How long will it be then before incest comes up, and what will be your justification for not allowing it? Genetic disorders? Nope, as discussed already, that doesn't work. Crime rate? Nope, that doesn't work either. 99.9% or 100%, doesn't matter. What if it drops to 50%, is it ok then? You can't base it on a percentage.

You may not think that incest and homosexuality have the same argument, and you're somewhat right. The reasoning to prevent the two is completely different. However, the justification to allow the two is identical. You can't justify one with justifying the other.

As for whether or not those of us against gay marriage have a decent argument, I wouldn't expect you to think we do. I don't necessarily think you have a very good argument for allowing it. And not to be rude or point of the obvious, but I don't have to convince anyone. I have no problem with the law the way it is, EXCEPT for the "benefits of marriage." And you know the funny thing, the one gay person that I know of that has written on here didn't care if the government legalized it. He wanted the benefits mostly, which I think most of us will agree that that they have the right to receive. However, he thought marriage should be handled in church (fancy that, religion), which is a great idea. So who are you really fighting for? Your own ideas don't even seem to mess with the majority of those that you claim you're supporting. Most of them just want their benefits and would be willing to accept just that. It people like you that have to have it all. You are the exact people who are making it so hard for those of us who DO want to see them with these benefits to do anything. You can't just take a piece at a time, you have to have the whole thing all at one. Why don't you figure out exactly who's side you're really on and quit using gays to advance your own ideas.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Simple. Marriage was defined by religion and as such it is religion which determines its valid use.

It isn't only Christians which define marriage as between man and woman.


Hey, if you want to keep God out of government then keep His terms out of it too. You cannot co-opt religion without it being in effect.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
Simple. Marriage was defined by religion and as such it is religion which determines its valid use.

It isn't only Christians which define marriage as between man and woman.


Hey, if you want to keep God out of government then keep His terms out of it too. You cannot co-opt religion without it being in effect.

I agree 100%. Keep religion out of the government, and keep the government out of religion.

 

[Moonbeam]

ee: Your agrument is still the same, a contradiction. You would critisize those against homosexual marriage for not allowing everyone to have the right to marry, yet you yourself are not trying to allow everyone the right to marry. You're just trying to enlarge the circle to fit those that you want to be included.

M: No they are not trying to enlarge anything. They are trying to take away an improper restriction that is unconstitutional. This will be more easily understood by you if you use your bigotry in reverse but you are in love with your neighbor's daughter and want to get married too: Imagine you lived in a world of test tube babies and marriage was restricted only to same sex couples but the Constitution said that such laws were illegal based on equality of gender and they also wouldn't let a father marry his son. Now imagine some donkey of a gay told you that your case was of the same merit as a father wanting to marry his son. I don't think in this case that it would take much to persuade you that the notion that you can't marry because some father can marry his son is criminal and frankly insane. It would not only be wrong but illegal under the constitution to deny you the right to marry.

ee: When interracial marriage was approved, it DID NOT change the definition of marriage. It changed the laws of the states as to who could get married, not the definition of marriage. Marriage has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman. That did not change, so that argument has no merit.

M: Of course it changed the definition of marriage. It changed it from a union of like race, Homoraceality, to interracial Heteroraceality. And it will still include men and women but not restrict whom with whom. And marriage used to be all about who is whose property and who owes what to whom. Marriage has, gasp, evolved and will continue to.

ee: The argument that incest doesn't matter has no merit either. In 1967 when interracial marriages became legal, there were hardly any gay couple that wanted to get married. Why? Most of them were too afraid to come out. You think it's any different now for incestuous couples? It took homosexuals nearly 30 years before they even started taking big leaps towards trying to get marriage rights. How long will it be then before incest comes up, and what will be your justification for not allowing it? Genetic disorders? Nope, as discussed already, that doesn't work. Crime rate? Nope, that doesn't work either. 99.9% or 100%, doesn't matter. What if it drops to 50%, is it ok then? You can't base it on a percentage.

M: Remember about restrictions and whether they are Constitutional? Remember that any justification is fine as long as it is Constitutional? We are not talking fare about which people can differ, but about legal which the courts define.

ee: You may not think that incest and homosexuality have the same argument, and you're somewhat right. The reasoning to prevent the two is completely different. However, the justification to allow the two is identical. You can't justify one with justifying the other.

M: Again, it has nothing to do with 'justification'. It has to do with 'legal'.

As for whether or not those of us against gay marriage have a decent argument, I wouldn't expect you to think we do. I don't necessarily think you have a very good argument for allowing it. And not to be rude or point of the obvious, but I don't have to convince anyone. I have no problem with the law the way it is, EXCEPT for the "benefits of marriage." And you know the funny thing, the one gay person that I know of that has written on here didn't care if the government legalized it. He wanted the benefits mostly, which I think most of us will agree that that they have the right to receive. However, he thought marriage should be handled in church (fancy that, religion), which is a great idea. So who are you really fighting for? Your own ideas don't even seem to mess with the majority of those that you claim you're supporting. Most of them just want their benefits and would be willing to accept just that. It people like you that have to have it all. You are the exact people who are making it so hard for those of us who DO want to see them with these benefits to do anything. You can't just take a piece at a time, you have to have the whole thing all at one. Why don't you figure out exactly who's side you're really on and quit using gays to advance your own ideas.

M: Very true. I don't give a rats ass what some gays will settle for. I want them to have the whole ball of wax as is their Constitutional right in my opinion. I believe in JUSTICE and will accept nothing less. Many gays object to gay marriage. Bully for them. A lot are doubtless peeved that the marriage issue casts shadows on their own promiscuous life styles and they look at marriage with contempt.