What exactly is the argument against Gay Marriage?

[SMOGZINN]

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."

Perhaps it is you that has the wrong definition of marriage. Marriage comes from the verb To Marry, which simply means to combine as one, or perhaps an intimate or close union. Either of which works for all typs of unions. For example, 'It is the marriage of cabbage and onions that creates that traditional German flavor." or "The concept of the Capitalism and Democracy will forever be married in our minds." These concepts have no gender assignment to them, yet you can see that the verb marry (and marriage) works perfectly for them.

Also, have you considered that maybe what homosexuals really want is equality under the law? Giving them a union with any name is not enough, it must be legally the same union everyone else gets, or it will be too easy to disenfranchise them at the first sign of trouble.

 

[Tab]

Actually, I've heard the states that do have gay marriage still aren't mirrors of hetrosexsual marriage. Civil Unions don't offer things like the ablity not to testify agaisnt your spouse and other little things like that. As for the defention of marriage, might I remind everyone again this doesn't have anything to with religion? In essence, our state run marriages are civil unions. The marriages offices only need consent and not love to bind to people together. Reguardless, even if they change the defention it doesn't mean you have to like it. I really hope everyone understands how I define "bigotry" and "discrimination". Do you understand what I am saying SMOGZINN?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: aidanjm
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 arguments for or against incestuous (et al.) marriage CAN be different, but does not have to be. What we really find here is that the arguments for homosexual (et al) marriage are the same, while the arguments against are different. I would really have to think on what this means, but my gut instinct tells me that means that the argument against is probably based on bias.

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.

Exactly!

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.

Yes, and these would have to be treated separately, but they all ultimately have to get past several common hurdles. Is the problem a serious enough threat to society for the state to get involved? Does making a law against this restrict certain essential freedoms? I think that this is where this entire thing falls apart, but we seem to gloss over those and jump right into moral issues.

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.

There should be no need to legalize it if it doesn't exist. Then there should be no law against it in the first place. We should not make laws that basically say that is it illegal unless noted otherwise. The law should state precisely what is illegal, and then anything else is legal.

I still stand by my original claim that the government needs to get out of the marriage business all together. No matter how or why marriage started or is defined, US government has no right to tell its citizens who or how to love, and when all is said and done that is what all laws about marriage are about.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Hey EE.....when did they make homosexuality a crime or decriminalize incest? I mean, if you are going to argue that if they allow gay marriage they should allow incestual marriage, there would have to be a reason. That would be the only reason that I can come up with as to allow one and not the other.

 

[Tab]

There should be no need to legalize it if it doesn't exist. Then there should be no law against it in the first place. We should not make laws that basically say that is it illegal unless noted otherwise. The law should state precisely what is illegal, and then anything else is legal.

That's the idea of our legal system, if something isn't explicted stated that it's illegal then it is legal.However, there are many people who still don't understand this concept *cough* TLC *cough*...

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: Tab
As for the defention of marriage, might I remind everyone again this doesn't have anything to with religion?

I wish that was true, but most people are simply incapably of separating this issue from religion, and so we have to deal with religion if we wish to deal with this issue. If it wasn't for religion we wouldn't have any of these problems, we would let anyone marry anyone else they wanted, and a surprisingly large number of people would be happy.

The marriages offices only need consent and not love to bind to people together.

That is not really true, a marriage license must be made 'in good faith' meaning for love or for the creation of a family and not for any type of financial gain.

Reguardless, even if they change the defention it doesn't mean you have to like it. I really hope everyone understands how I define "bigotry" and "discrimination".

This discussion needs to get away from definitions. We can call it anything we want, what this is about is equality, personal freedoms, and the governments roll in our lives.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: Tab
As for the defention of marriage, might I remind everyone again this doesn't have anything to with religion?

I wish that was true, but most people are simply incapably of separating this issue from religion, and so we have to deal with religion if we wish to deal with this issue. If it wasn't for religion we wouldn't have any of these problems, we would let anyone marry anyone else they wanted, and a surprisingly large number of people would be happy.

The marriages offices only need consent and not love to bind to people together.

That is not really true, a marriage license must be made 'in good faith' meaning for love or for the creation of a family and not for any type of financial gain.

Reguardless, even if they change the defention it doesn't mean you have to like it. I really hope everyone understands how I define "bigotry" and "discrimination".

This discussion needs to get away from definitions. We can call it anything we want, what this is about is equality, personal freedoms, and the governments roll in our lives.

That's not what I am trying to say exactly, marriage involves love and consent. All our Goverment does is ask for consent. In essence, our state run marriages are in reality are just state run civil unions. The defintion of marriage doesn't fit very well. It's not a big deal, but I'd just don't beileve it should be this way. It's kind of dumb to say gay should have just civil unions not marriages, in reality they're the same things just different words. It sounds like I should not agruee when people say "Marriage is 1 man 1 women".

The discussion shouldn't be about defintion, but it often comes to that. It is discrimination and bigotry to deny same-sex couples their rights and privlidges, I am not going to allow someone to "distort" a definition to their own needs and leave it alone. I wish we could keep the discussion to just those things you listed, and I'll try to do better.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: Tab
The discussion shouldn't be about defintion, but it often comes to that. It is discrimination and bigotry to deny same-sex couples their rights and privlidges, I am not going to allow someone to "distort" a definition to their own needs and leave it alone. I wish we could keep the discussion to just those things you listed, and I'll try to do better.

I think I understand what you are saying. It seems that certain members of our society are trying to attach a wrong definition on this entire issue, and that is where the problem is. You end up feeling that if they would just stop trying to use that definition that has all this irrelevant baggage attached; this could be solved really simply. That was the same reasoning that led me to make the post about the word marry meaning 'to make as one' and not having any gender assignments. But I think aidanjm had it right, the whole definition argument is just a smoke job to cover up the real political purpose of holding on to their religion as law. Otherwise you would think that they would have already come around and agreed to change the legal institution of marriage to a civil union open to everyone under a new name.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

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.

The one things that seems to be becoming increasingly obvious is the fact that your agrument is not about homosexual marriage. Your whole argument is religious influence in governmental law. You just see the ban on homosexual marriage as a result of this "problem." As you stated, you don't give a "rats ass" about how homosexuals feel about this problem. You obviously feel you know better than they do about what they want and what is right, and you're going to give it to them whether they want it or not. So why don't you leave them out of it and start talking about what your real problem is?

Hey, if all else fails, you can keep beating the dead horse you call "bigot." Actually, that doesn't seem to be a very good argument for you either, so you might not want to go there either.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Hey EE.....when did they make homosexuality a crime or decriminalize incest? I mean, if you are going to argue that if they allow gay marriage they should allow incestual marriage, there would have to be a reason. That would be the only reason that I can come up with as to allow one and not the other.

The argument to allow homosexual marriage is that any two people should be allowed to decide, without government restrictions, if they want to marry, thereby removing the "sex" restriction. The argument with this is, why is it ok to remove that restriction and not others? The entire supporting argument for removing the one restriction would apply to removing all other restrictions as well, whether it applies to incest, polygomy, or anything else.

Personally, I agree that we should just keep marriage and government seperate. Let the churches decide on marriage. The government just needs to ensure that all couple receive the equal benefits, regardless of the type of relationship they have. However, due to the fact that this isn't good enough for some people, we're going to end up having to make a decision, yes or no. And in that, all chances of getting "marriage benefits" for homosexual couple will be lost because it doesn't come include the "right" to marry. People can hate me of think of me what they will that gay couple aren't getting the right to marry, but it's those people who are the one preventing them from getting ANY rights.

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: SMOGZINN

Originally posted by: Tab
The discussion shouldn't be about defintion, but it often comes to that. It is discrimination and bigotry to deny same-sex couples their rights and privlidges, I am not going to allow someone to "distort" a definition to their own needs and leave it alone. I wish we could keep the discussion to just those things you listed, and I'll try to do better.

I think I understand what you are saying. It seems that certain members of our society are trying to attach a wrong definition on this entire issue, and that is where the problem is. You end up feeling that if they would just stop trying to use that definition that has all this irrelevant baggage attached; this could be solved really simply. That was the same reasoning that led me to make the post about the word marry meaning 'to make as one' and not having any gender assignments. But I think aidanjm had it right, the whole definition argument is just a smoke job to cover up the real political purpose of holding on to their religion as law. Otherwise you would think that they would have already come around and agreed to change the legal institution of marriage to a civil union open to everyone under a new name.

Of course it is, the "religious-right" will do everything they can to stop the "promoting" of behaviors,acts,material,ect... that they decide are "sinful". Don't get me wrong that it's not the religion I hate, it's more of the bigotry that follows.

I don't think the use of the word "marriage" is that big of a deal, personally I would settle for "civil unions", it feels like a good compromise for both sides for now, we'll have to wait a 100 years for the bigoted population to die off. The again, there will always been some christian douchebaggery thats going around...

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

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.

The one things that seems to be becoming increasingly obvious is the fact that your agrument is not about homosexual marriage. Your whole argument is religious influence in governmental law. You just see the ban on homosexual marriage as a result of this "problem." As you stated, you don't give a "rats ass" about how homosexuals feel about this problem. You obviously feel you know better than they do about what they want and what is right, and you're going to give it to them whether they want it or not. So why don't you leave them out of it and start talking about what your real problem is?

Hey, if all else fails, you can keep beating the dead horse you call "bigot." Actually, that doesn't seem to be a very good argument for you either, so you might not want to go there either.

Apparently, you lack the skills required to read Moonbeams post, he didn't say alll gays. There are plenty of homosexsual who simply don't give a damn about the current situation but there are plenty that want to go all the way. Why should anyone not get their full rights and privildges? Why should we stop halfway in the race?

You've also failed to address many of the points I've raisied and Moonbeams last post. I don't care if you address my eariler posts but I would like you to define "Bigotry", "Intolerance" and "Discrimination" in your own words, and provide examples.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Your agrument is still the same, a contradiction.

What is my argument? I am making no argument. I am pointing out that the justifications for legalising same sex marriage are different than the justifications for legalising polygamy or incestuous marriage. Only a fool would fail to acknowledge that.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
You would critisize those against homosexual marriage for not allowing everyone to have the right to marry,

I criticise them for not allowing adult, consenting same-sex couples from marrying. However I am perfectly comfortable that 5 year old children are not allowed to marry. Some restrictions on marriage are perfectly easy to defend, in my opinion.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
yet you yourself are not trying to allow everyone the right to marry.

That's because I don't believe that everyone should have access to marriage. For example, I do not believe that children should be able to marry.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
You're just trying to enlarge the circle to fit those that you want to be included.

Of course I am. It's not my job to fight for the rights of incestuous couples to marry. I don't know any incestuous couples, I have no knowledge of their "plight". If an incestuous couple wants to step forward, and explain how they are disadvantaged by their inability to marry each other, then I may be persuades to lend my support to their cause. I'm actually quite interested to see if these people exist, and to what extent they are disadvantaged by their lack of access to marriage. Actually, I asked you in my previous post to link to a SINGLE EXAMPLE of an incestuous couple desperately wanting to marry each other, can't say I'm surprised you haven't bothered to do this..

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
When interracial marriage was approved, it DID NOT change the definition of marriage.

Marriage between same-sex individuals was allowed, encouraged, among many of the Native American tribes of the USA (the original inhabitants of the USA, who lived for many many thousands of years in the usa prior to the arrival of european settlers). Thus to be accurate, we must acknowledge that the limiting of access to marriage to opposite gender couples is an historically quite recent occurrence.

Among European settlers, marriage occured between opposite gender, white couples. African americans weren't entitled to marry, at all. Laws specifically prohibited them from marrying. I.e., the actual, legal definition of marriage - who may marry, who may not - was different before and after the allowing of blacks to marry among themselves. The actual, legal definition of marriage (not to mention the cultural definition of marriage) was changed again when interracial couples were allowed to marry.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
It changed the laws of the states as to who could get married,

I.e., it changed the legal definition of marriage.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
not the definition of marriage.

Yes, it changed the definition of marriage.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Marriage has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman. That did not change, so that argument has no merit.

You idiotically repeating that "Marriage has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman" doesn't make it true. As I have pointed out, same sex couples did marry among certain Native American Indian tribes prior to the arrival of european settlers (and for many hundreds of years after the arrival of european settlers). It's also worth pointing to other historical examples of forms of marriage differing from your "one man and one woman", e.g., the marriage of the "prophet" Mohammed and his 20+ wives, one of whom was a 5 year old girl. I.e., in past Arabic culture, marriage was an institution that occurred between a man and a 5 year old girl. (Or between a man and 20+ women.) And let's not forget that for many years, polygamy was entirely legal in parts of the USA. Thus the claim that marriage has historically been restricted to one adult male and one adult female is inaccurate, and you are deeply dishonest to be perpetuating this lie. I find that this behavior of yours (repeating ad nauseum an historical innaccuracy, or lie) is SO typical of certain fundamentalist Christians, who, it seems to me, have a habit of re-writing history to suit their own perverted purposes, accuracy be damned. I see that you fall into this category of deeply dishonest individuals, willing to manipulate the FACTS (i.e., lie) in order to advance your cause. So very pathetic. Shame on you.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
The argument that incest doesn't matter has no merit either.

When you find me a mother/ son couple, or a father/ daughter couple, desperate to marry, and willing to share their story and explain to me why they are disadvantaged due to a lack of access to marriage, then I will listen to what they have to say and consider whether or not to support them.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
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.

So you're seeking to ban same-sex marriage on the grounds that were they allowed, then you won't have sufficient justification to ban incestuous marriages? Lol.

Don't assume I am opposed to the legalisation of marriage between people who are closely genetically related. I'll await to hear the stories of these incestuous couples themselves before I decide on that issue. By the way, have you found me a mother/ son or father/ daughter couple wanting to marry?

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
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.

The legal justification to allow same-sex marriage is that to deny it is a violation of equal treatment before the law for male and female citizens. If I can't marry Tom because I am male, but Sarah can marry Tom because she is female, the law is treating me, Sarah differently for the sole reason we are of different genders. That's illegal as per the usa constitution. Please explain how this argument applies to incestuous couples.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
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.

Who are you talking to?

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
The argument to allow homosexual marriage is that any two people should be allowed to decide, without government restrictions, if they want to marry, thereby removing the "sex" restriction.

The argument for same-sex marriage is not that "any two people should be allowed to marry". The notion that "any two people should be allowed to marry" is absurd. We don't allow an adult man and a 5 year old girl to marry, and with good reason.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
The argument with this is, why is it ok to remove that restriction and not others? The entire supporting argument for removing the one restriction would apply to removing all other restrictions as well, whether it applies to incest, polygomy, or anything else.

So legalising same-sex marriage on grounds of equal treatment before the law with respect to gender somehow invalidates age requirements in marriage? The legalisation of same-sex marriage means there is suddenly no good argument against allowing a 13 year old boy and a 40 year old man to marry? Lol.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Personally, I agree that we should just keep marriage and government seperate. Let the churches decide on marriage. The government just needs to ensure that all couple receive the equal benefits, regardless of the type of relationship they have. However, due to the fact that this isn't good enough for some people, we're going to end up having to make a decision, yes or no. And in that, all chances of getting "marriage benefits" for homosexual couple will be lost because it doesn't come include the "right" to marry. People can hate me of think of me what they will that gay couple aren't getting the right to marry, but it's those people who are the one preventing them from getting ANY rights.

:vomit;

 

[Mickey Eye]

Apologies if this has already been mentioned as I only badly speed read the previous pages.

On the subject of "It's not natural", around 450 different species have been identified as having same sex relations (or just buggering each other, if you prefer). It's hard to provide a link as such as googling "gay animal sex" throws up all the wrong links, however this book covers the matter in detail.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

What is my argument? I am making no argument. I am pointing out that the justifications for legalising same sex marriage are different than the justifications for legalising polygamy or incestuous marriage. Only a fool would fail to acknowledge that.

Actually, only a foul would fail to see how they are the same. Look at your next quote and just change one word. Change same-sex in the first sentence to opposite-sex.

I criticise them for not allowing adult, consenting same-sex couples from marrying. However I am perfectly comfortable that 5 year old children are not allowed to marry. Some restrictions on marriage are perfectly easy to defend, in my opinion.

Easy to defend? I believe the legal age now is 18, without parental concent. What about all the people in previous time that got married typically around 14-16? They seemed to do pretty well for themselves, yet you would say it shouldn't be allowed. Are you so arrogant as to believe that your beliefs only are the ones that are correct for marriage? Though I do agree that some restriction need to be placed on marriage, I find your arguments for changing these restrictions to be somewhat lacking and not very easily defended.

That's because I don't believe that everyone should have access to marriage. For example, I do not believe that children should be able to marry.

Wow, we do actually agree on something.

Of course I am. It's not my job to fight for the rights of incestuous couples to marry. I don't know any incestuous couples, I have no knowledge of their "plight". If an incestuous couple wants to step forward, and explain how they are disadvantaged by their inability to marry each other, then I may be persuades to lend my support to their cause. I'm actually quite interested to see if these people exist, and to what extent they are disadvantaged by their lack of access to marriage. Actually, I asked you in my previous post to link to a SINGLE EXAMPLE of an incestuous couple desperately wanting to marry each other, can't say I'm surprised you haven't bothered to do this..

Actually, if you had READ my previous post, I did mention the exist of incestuous couples and where they could be found. However, since you don't actually read my post and you can't seem to type "incest couples" into google, here some help. (Incest) However, you might not want to read this as it does confirm the idea that the justification of homosexuality also justifies incest, among other things.

Marriage between same-sex individuals was allowed, encouraged, among many of the Native American tribes of the USA (the original inhabitants of the USA, who lived for many many thousands of years in the usa prior to the arrival of european settlers). Thus to be accurate, we must acknowledge that the limiting of access to marriage to opposite gender couples is an historically quite recent occurrence.

Among European settlers, marriage occured between opposite gender, white couples. African americans weren't entitled to marry, at all. Laws specifically prohibited them from marrying. I.e., the actual, legal definition of marriage - who may marry, who may not - was different before and after the allowing of blacks to marry among themselves. The actual, legal definition of marriage (not to mention the cultural definition of marriage) was changed again when interracial couples were allowed to marry.

I.e., it changed the legal definition of marriage.

Before:
Marriage - Union between man and woman
Legal requirement for marriage - must be of same race

After:
Marriage - Union between man and woman
Legal requirement for marriage - may be of any race

I.e., no change in marriage definition, only in legal requirements for marriage, so nice try.

Yes, it changed the definition of marriage.

Again, nice try.

You idiotically repeating that "Marriage has always been defined as the union between a man and a woman" doesn't make it true. As I have pointed out, same sex couples did marry among certain Native American Indian tribes prior to the arrival of european settlers (and for many hundreds of years after the arrival of european settlers). It's also worth pointing to other interesting historical examples, e.g., the marriage of the "prophet" Mohammed and his 20+ wives, one of whom was a 5 year old girl. I.e., in past Arabic culture, marriage was an institution that occurred between a man and a 5 year old girl. (Or between a man and 20+ women.) And let's not forget that for many years, polygamy was entirely legal in parts of the USA. Thus the claim that marriage has historically been restricted to one adult male and one adult female is inaccurate, and you are deeply dishonest to be perpetuating this lie. I find that this behavior of yours (repeating ad nauseum an historical innaccuracy, or lie) is SO typical of certain fundamentalist Christians, who, it seems to me, have a habit of re-writing history to suit their own perverted purposes, accuracy be damned. I see that you fall into this category of deeply dishonest individuals, willing to manipulate the FACTS (i.e., lie) in order to advance your cause. So very pathetic. Shame on you.

Marriage - union between a man and a woman (as I posted previously), or union between man and woman, whichever you like.

In neither of these definitions do I see the word "one." Do you? However, I understand what you mean by "one man and one woman." But, even polygomay doesn't violate this law. The man is said to have several marriages, thus still not violating the definition of marriage. Each marriage he has is between himself and one woman, not himself and 10 or 20 women. The women are not married to each other, only to the man. And yes, shame on me for being different from you. Personally, I'm quite happy to be able to say I am different from you.

When you find me a mother/ son couple, or a father/ daughter couple, desperate to marry, and willing to share their story and explain to me why they are disadvantaged due to a lack of access to marriage, then I will listen to what they have to say and consider whether or not to support them.

See above link.

So you're seeking to ban same-sex marriage on the grounds that were they allowed, then you won't have sufficient justification to ban incestuous marriages? Lol.

Don't assume I am opposed to the legalisation of marriage between people who are closely genetically related. I'll await to hear the stories of these incestuous couples themselves before I decide on that issue. By the way, have you found me a mother/ son or father/ daughter couple wanting to marry?

As before, see above link. Though, it's brother/sister. Hope that's good enough for you.

The legal justification to allow same-sex marriage is that to deny it is a violation of equal treatment before the law for male and female citizens. If I can't marry Tom because I am male, but Sarah can marry Tom because she is female, the law is treating me, Sarah differently for the sole reason we are of different genders. That's illegal as per the usa constitution. Please explain how this argument applies to incestuous couples.

Again, marriage is not a right protected under the constitution, therefore it can not be unconstitutional. The only violation in the constitution is that certain benefits are reserved for only those who are married. And THAT is what MUST change.

Who are you talking to?

That would be you. Only problem is, you won't listen to anyway, gay or straight. The majority of american believe that homosexual marriage isn't right. Instead of accepting that for the time being and trying to work on other rights that homosexuals are being denided, you are going to continue to beat that dead horse and ruin all chances of homosexuals getting any of the rights they deserve. Why, because it has to be all or nothing for you. Whether you like our argument or we like yours is irrelevant. The fact remains that across the country, bans are being instituted a huge number of states on gay marriage. This doesn't meant they can't get married. What it does mean is that they will never be able to receive the proper benefits that they are entitled to. It would be much easier to get power of attorney or insurance benefits if people like you would ever learn to leave the marriage out of it, at least for now. I'm not telling you to give up the war. I'm telling you to accept the fact that the battle for marriage has been lost. It's time to move on to other battles, ones that you ACTUALLY have a chance to win.

Until then, don't blame your problems on me. Your inability to move on is what is killing your chances, not me.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: engineereeyore

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

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.

The one things that seems to be becoming increasingly obvious is the fact that your agrument is not about homosexual marriage. Your whole argument is religious influence in governmental law. You just see the ban on homosexual marriage as a result of this "problem." As you stated, you don't give a "rats ass" about how homosexuals feel about this problem. You obviously feel you know better than they do about what they want and what is right, and you're going to give it to them whether they want it or not. So why don't you leave them out of it and start talking about what your real problem is?

Hey, if all else fails, you can keep beating the dead horse you call "bigot." Actually, that doesn't seem to be a very good argument for you either, so you might not want to go there either.

Apparently, you lack the skills required to read Moonbeams post, he didn't say alll gays. There are plenty of homosexsual who simply don't give a damn about the current situation but there are plenty that want to go all the way. Why should anyone not get their full rights and privildges? Why should we stop halfway in the race?

You've also failed to address many of the points I've raisied and Moonbeams last post. I don't care if you address my eariler posts but I would like you to define "Bigotry", "Intolerance" and "Discrimination" in your own words, and provide examples.

No, apparently YOU lack the skill required to read. I never stated that he didn't care about "all gays." As I stated before, the MAJORITY (here's a link if you need help majority) of gay don't care about the marriage crap. They only want the benefits that they are entitled to. The fact that Moonbeam called this majority "some" is his problem, not mine.

I have already defined bigotry and you yourself have defined it several times, each of which, as I recalled, incriminated you just as much as me. Forgive me if I tire of your relentless pursuit to try to make yourself out to be so much nicer and wonderful than me. If you want my definition, go back and read it.

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: assemblage
Gay marriage is another step at normalizing deviant behavior and the promotion of moral relativism.

News Flash, morality is relative/subjective.

Major Devolpment, morality is absolute.

There will NEVER be a case in which murder, lying, cheating, thievery, aldultery, etc... are morally justifiable.

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: aidanjm

The argument for same-sex marriage is not that "any two people should be allowed to marry". The notion that "any two people should be allowed to marry" is absurd. We don't allow an adult man and a 5 year old girl to marry, and with good reason.

Actually, that would fall under that fact that a person must have an understanding and be in complete agreement with the term and conditions of any legal contract, including marriage, before they can enter therein. I'm not sure about you, but I know of few 5 year old how can read and understand that well.

So legalising same-sex marriage on grounds of equal treatment before the law with respect to gender somehow invalidates age requirements in marriage? The legalisation of same-sex marriage suddenly means there is no good argument against allowing a 13 year old boy and a 40 year old man to marry? Lol.

Although I don't really like the idea, 13 year olds have married before. Still do today in different countries. Does the fact that we decided in the 1900's, I believe (feel free to correct me though), that 18 was the correct age make us therefore make us correct? I agree, I don't want my children getting married before 18, but does that mean they shouldn't? There's obviously nothing genetically or biologically destructive about it, seeing as humans have been doing it for quite some time.

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
Personally, I agree that we should just keep marriage and government seperate. Let the churches decide on marriage. The government just needs to ensure that all couple receive the equal benefits, regardless of the type of relationship they have. However, due to the fact that this isn't good enough for some people, we're going to end up having to make a decision, yes or no. And in that, all chances of getting "marriage benefits" for homosexual couple will be lost because it doesn't come include the "right" to marry. People can hate me of think of me what they will that gay couple aren't getting the right to marry, but it's those people who are the one preventing them from getting ANY rights.

:vomit;[/quote]

Yes, you like so many others, can't see past your own self interest long enough to help anyone else. You accuse me of letting my religious beliefs infringe on the rights of others, yet it's your lack of religious belief that makes you infringe on rights of others. There is another thread called "The 'Religious Right' and politics." I believe that's where your opinion on this matter belongs.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: assemblage
Gay marriage is another step at normalizing deviant behavior and the promotion of moral relativism.

News Flash, morality is relative/subjective.

Major Devolpment, morality is absolute.

There will NEVER be a case in which murder, lying, cheating, thievery, aldultery, etc... are morally justifiable.

So an assassination attempt of a murderous tyrant isn't justified?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: assemblage
Gay marriage is another step at normalizing deviant behavior and the promotion of moral relativism.

News Flash, morality is relative/subjective.

Major Devolpment, morality is absolute.

There will NEVER be a case in which murder, lying, cheating, thievery, aldultery, etc... are morally justifiable.

So an assassination attempt of a murderous tyrant isn't justified?

And yet so much outrage for the "moral majority" about how Clinton botched an assassination attempt (read murder) of OBL. How does that get squashed in your conscience?

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Genesys

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: assemblage
Gay marriage is another step at normalizing deviant behavior and the promotion of moral relativism.

News Flash, morality is relative/subjective.

Major Devolpment, morality is absolute.

There will NEVER be a case in which murder, lying, cheating, thievery, aldultery, etc... are morally justifiable.

So an assassination attempt of a murderous tyrant isn't justified?

Yes, it is justified. Justification, in this situation, is saving the lives of many by taking the life of one. It's still murder, and there will probably be a good bit of lying involved.
Morality is not absolute. It varies from person to person, from situation to situation.
I will say though that most people know the difference between right and wrong. And even the definition of right and wrong tends to vary from person to person.

 

[engineereeyore]

I agree. I think there are circumstances in which certain "crimes" are justified. Personally, I would rather see us capture OBL and see him in jail for the rest of his life. But is that possible without risking and/or losing many lives? Doesn't seem so right now. So that would present a "need" that would justify the assassination/murder. However, what everyone disagrees with is whether or not a "need" is present to justify homosexual marriage. But then, is a "need" even necessary to justify homosexual marriage?

Anyway, I think that is what Genesys was trying to say, that it is never justifiable without a "need," but correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Zysoclaplem]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
I agree. I think there are circumstances in which certain "crimes" are justified. Personally, I would rather see us capture OBL and see him in jail for the rest of his life. But is that possible without risking and/or losing many lives? Doesn't seem so right now. So that would present a "need" that would justify the assassination/murder. However, what everyone disagrees with is whether or not a "need" is present to justify homosexual marriage. But then, is a "need" even necessary to justify homosexual marriage?

Anyway, I think that is what Genesys was trying to say, that it is never justifiable without a "need," but correct me if I'm wrong.

Is there a "need" for heterosexual marriage? No. Is there a "need" for homosexual marriage? No.
But there is a "want." There are alot of wants and very few needs in this world.


There is a "need" for food, water, shelter. That's all a human "needs" to survive.

I'm sorry, I am getting off the subject at hand.

My point is, homosexuals want to marry. The only reason we cannot get married, is because, like you have said before, marriage is between a male and female. So two males or two females cannot marry.
I have no problem with that. That's just the way it is right now.

The problem I have is that we are trying to get that modified, so not only heterosexuals can marry, but homosexuals as well. And it's being protested and blocked and criticized as the downfall of society.

Homosexual marriage will pass. It will be 100% legal one day. There is no doubt about that in my mind. And when it does, what will you do?

 

[engineereeyore]

I will accept that it is the will of the majority, just as I have always stated. If the majority of americans feel that homosexual marriages are ok, then the government has an obligation to recognize that as a "civil union," "marriage," whatever. It would be wrong of me to ask homosexual to accept the majority decision to not accept homosexual marriage and then for me to not accept a majority decision to accpet homosexual marriage.

Not sure if "need" was the best word, but I couldn't think of anything else. Though I hope you understood what I meant, which I think you did. However, food, water, and shelter are all a human "needs" to survive, but not to exist, or more correctly, to continue to exist/survive. That requires a heterosexual relationship. Doesn't mean homosexual relationship can't happen, and I've never told them that they shouldn't, because that's just my opinion and nothing more.