What is the most probable motivation for the states that reject gay marriage?

[Atreus21]

Answer my question.

Google it and be enlightened in the ways of poor arguments.

Okay.

What harm can bestiality truly cause? What harm can polygamy truly cause to consenting individuals? What harm can incest truly cause to consenting individuals?

 

[jonks]

Okay.

What harm can bestiality truly cause? What harm can polygamy truly cause to consenting individuals? What harm can incest truly cause to consenting individuals?

Yay, let's play the slippery slope game instead of addressing the issue before us.

Same arguments made when interracial marriage was the topic of the day. "Race mixing is for mongrels like dogs! We aint no mutts!"

But to address your "argument", adult consensual polygamy won't cause any real harm, it's the abuses associated with the practice from the groups which engage in it (i.e. forced marriage, rape, incest) that leads to harm. Frankly if 3 consenting adults wish to get married, the arguments against it will be merely practical, i.e. property dissolution, inheritance, divorce allocation of assets, custody, powers of attorney and next of kin (what if you have 2 wives who disagree whether your plug should be pulled?)
So, again, where's your "practical" arguments against same sex marriage?

Incest is banned because inbreeding leads to genetic abnormalities. Your bestiality argument is simply insulting and has no relevance as an argument against gay marriage, as same sex marriage proponents aren't relying on the "what harm can it cause" position as a legal argument.

There are zero, zip, zilch, nada valid practical or legal argument's against same sex marriage. Tradition, religion, culture, fail, fail, fail.

 

[K1052]

Okay.

What harm can bestiality truly cause? What harm can polygamy truly cause to consenting individuals? What harm can incest truly cause to consenting individuals?

You didn't answer the question. Again....

What tangible harm does allowing gay marriage do to the heterosexual population in our secular nation?

 

[BMW540I6speed]

Many people who try to take religious or bigoted reasons off the table for opposing SSM, try to justify it by the fallacy of retaining the definition of marriage, believing the underlying idea that it represents a specific (normal) relationship. Its all about a word.

In other words, what, specifically, is the value of retaining the definition of marriage so that it represents that specific, normal relationship?

I mean...if I were the CEO of a trucking company, and were giving a press conference to announce that we had just installed a set of GPS devices in all our trucks to improve dispatch efficiency and package delivery tracking, I might say, "The marriage of this new technology to the age-old practice of shipping and delivering represents an exciting new time for BMW540I6speed Trucking"

I assume some wouldn't leap from their seat in horror at my use of the word marriage in that context, right? You would understand it as a useful description of the permanant partnership formed by two entities, even though that word had not, before this decade, ever been used in connection with GPS devices.

So why is there a reluctance to acknowledge that the word is the best descriptor of the legal union of two men, or of two women, in a relationship that is in all meaningful ways precisely analogous to the legal union of a man and a woman? What is the principled distinction of the opposite-sex union that makes it, and it alone, suitable to be called a marriage?

 

[LunarRay]

Why should religions have the only say, to placate the Religious bigots

That's a start. But, I think the major issue is the married bigots would feel yuky if Gays could be just like them. Gays... they'd probably hold hands in church and pat each other on the.... uggg.. butt in the grocery store and touch the lettuce. What is this world coming to? It was just fine in 1776 kickin the British out then they got all pansy like... Real men ain't Gay... but them Lesbians... yummy...

:+)

 

[spittledip]

What part of the definition do these people not meet, that people who are against interracial marriage do meet? Do you think there are those who are against interracial marriage who are not bigots?

People who are against interracial marriage are not necessarily bigots either. Someone might have been raised like that, and they never gave it much thought and don't feel any particular way about it, they just think it is not proper.

Also, you can't really compare interracial marriage with same-sex marriage as one stays within the definition of marriage and the other does not. People were not opposed to interracial marriage b/c it was going against what marriage was, they were against it b/c they did not like the idea of one of their own being married to a race they did not like. Completely different concept. In order to make the comparison work, you would first have to redefine marriage, and then make the comparison. However, had marriage already been redefined, this would not be an issue. In the end it is circular.

 

[spittledip]

Many people who try to take religious or bigoted reasons off the table for opposing SSM, try to justify it by the fallacy of retaining the definition of marriage, believing the underlying idea that it represents a specific (normal) relationship. Its all about a word.

In other words, what, specifically, is the value of retaining the definition of marriage so that it represents that specific, normal relationship?

I mean...if I were the CEO of a trucking company, and were giving a press conference to announce that we had just installed a set of GPS devices in all our trucks to improve dispatch efficiency and package delivery tracking, I might say, "The marriage of this new technology to the age-old practice of shipping and delivering represents an exciting new time for BMW540I6speed Trucking"

I assume some wouldn't leap from their seat in horror at my use of the word marriage in that context, right? You would understand it as a useful description of the permanant partnership formed by two entities, even though that word had not, before this decade, ever been used in connection with GPS devices.

So why is there a reluctance to acknowledge that the word is the best descriptor of the legal union of two men, or of two women, in a relationship that is in all meaningful ways precisely analogous to the legal union of a man and a woman? What is the principled distinction of the opposite-sex union that makes it, and it alone, suitable to be called a marriage?

This is lawyer speak. The argument is not about a word, the argument is about a concept.

 

[OrByte]

People who are against interracial marriage are not necessarily bigots either. Someone might have been raised like that, and they never gave it much thought and don't feel any particular way about it, they just think it is not proper.

Also, you can't really compare interracial marriage with same-sex marriage as one stays within the definition of marriage and the other does not. People were not opposed to interracial marriage b/c it was going against what marriage was, they were against it b/c they did not like the idea of one of their own being married to a race they did not like. Completely different concept. In order to make the comparison work, you would first have to redefine marriage, and then make the comparison. However, had marriage already been redefined, this would not be an issue. In the end it is circular.

christ almighty dude...reread what you wrote please.

fallacious arguments ABOUND.

man some of you people just...KILL logic and reasoning.

Just 1st degree MURDER all reasonable arguments...its a fvcking bloodbath in here!!

 

[OrByte]

This is lawyer speak. The argument is not about a word, the argument is about a concept.

the argument has always been about a word.

 

[LunarRay]

the argument has always been about a word

And that word is Freedom!

 

[spittledip]

the argument has always been about a word.

The word refers to a concept.

 

[OrByte]

And that word is Freedom!

or

JUSTICE!!!

but your word is better.

 

[spittledip]

christ almighty dude...reread what you wrote please.

fallacious arguments ABOUND.

man some of you people just...KILL logic and reasoning.

Just 1st degree MURDER all reasonable arguments...its a fvcking bloodbath in here!!

B/c you choose not to or pretend not to understand does not make it unreasonable.

 

[LunarRay]

or

JUSTICE!!!

but your word is better.

How about Freedom and Justice... I like that ... sounds.... American..

 

[OrByte]

B/c you choose not to or pretend not to understand does not make it unreasonable.

I didnt say it was unreasonable, and I certainly understand your hyper critical thinking of all things that are "proper" or not.

it is well within reason for you to have a stick up your ass about what is "proper" and not in society.

very reasonable people have very reasonable opinions about things.

You simply wish to legislate what you think is "proper"

"proper" being entirely subjective...and you don't see it.

As far as "going against what marriage was (is)" again...subjective bullshit.

"you can't really compare interracial marriage with same-sex marriage as one stays within the definition of marriage and the other does not."

oh my god...man that is just brutally stupid.

So let me ask you this, interracial marriage is marriage but gay marriage is...? what exactly? is it gardening between two people in love? is it riding on a space ship between two lovers? Is it digging a hole to china shared between two people in love? how is the definition changed?

ugh...why bother.

 

[OrByte]

How about Freedom and Justice... I like that ... sounds.... American..

my oh my how far we've come eh?

 

[spittledip]

I didnt say it was unreasonable, and I certainly understand your hyper critical thinking of all things that are "proper" or not.

it is well within reason for you to have a stick up your ass about what is "proper" and not in society.

very reasonable people have very reasonable opinions about things.

You simply wish to legislate what you think is "proper"

"proper" being entirely subjective...and you don't see it.

As far as "going against what marriage was (is)" again...subjective bullshit.

"you can't really compare interracial marriage with same-sex marriage as one stays within the definition of marriage and the other does not."

oh my god...man that is just brutally stupid.

So let me ask you this, interracial marriage is marriage but gay marriage is...? what exactly? is it gardening between two people in love? is it riding on a space ship between two lovers? Is it digging a hole to china shared between two people in love? how is the definition changed?

ugh...why bother.

The "proper" segment was only an example of how someone may hold a belief that may be considered discriminatory without being a bigot.

For the 2nd paragraph: People are arguing over the definition of marriage as a concept. Marriage has already been established as a union between a man and a woman- people are arguing to change that definition. If the definition of the concept of marriage was a union between any 2 people, there would be no argument. Again, if there was no pre-established definition of marriage, there would be no argument! The fact is, people are trying to change the concept of marriage.

 

[rchiu]

no its your point of view that is pathetic.

I see that you think gays are just a bunch of weird punks and cross dressers. I think if you were OPEN to seeing gay couples that are in "stable" and good relationships it wouldn't matter, you would always find something wrong with them.

What you posted says alot about you...none of it good. I would be embarrassed posting something like that on a public forum, you seem to think its ok. You managed to take pot shots at gays AND women...congrats dude...

Heh, I will take pot shots at any and all the Politically Correct crowd who tries to get what they want not by their own hardwork, skill or knowledge but because of reverse discrimination.

And by the way, I know plenty of stable gay couple, including my MBA dean 10+ years back who was openly lesbian. But unfortunately they are in the minority, and they are silent. All the vocal gay parade people just keep sending the negative message. Marriage is THE most basic foundation of human society and if we as human is smart, we wouldn't mess with it. And messing with it because of Politically Correctness is simply dumb.

 

[LunarRay]

For the 2nd paragraph: People are arguing over the definition of marriage as a concept. Marriage has already been established as a union between a man and a woman- people are arguing to change that definition. If the definition of the concept of marriage was a union between any 2 people, there would be no argument. Again, if there was no pre-established definition of marriage, there would be no argument! The fact is, people are trying to change the concept of marriage.

It was assumed to be between man and woman... it didn't get codified back then. Use to be marriage was between the same race with some exceptions. I'm all for limiting it to the same species... beyond that.. nah..

 

[BeauJangles]

The "proper" segment was only an example of how someone may hold a belief that may be considered discriminatory without being a bigot.

For the 2nd paragraph: People are arguing over the definition of marriage as a concept. Marriage has already been established as a union between a man and a woman- people are arguing to change that definition. If the definition of the concept of marriage was a union between any 2 people, there would be no argument. Again, if there was no pre-established definition of marriage, there would be no argument! The fact is, people are trying to change the concept of marriage.

How are you going to address the gross inequalities in rights conferred to people who are permitted to marry versus those that are under the completely arbitrary criteria you've established?

 

[Vic]

The authoritarian desire to restrict the relationships and associations of other people. That is the motivation. The desire to control people and force them to be like you.

edit: to clarify, we're not allowing gay marriage. That's a misnomer. This isn't about granting unnatural freedoms or changing a natural state, because the natural state is that people don't have to ask for govt's permission in order to have sex. And just because the laws against fornication and sodomy are no longer enforced doesn't mean that that's not what we're really talking about, because it is.

 

[BMW540I6speed]

For the 2nd paragraph: People are arguing over the definition of marriage as a concept. Marriage has already been established as a union between a man and a woman- people are arguing to change that definition. If the definition of the concept of marriage was a union between any 2 people, there would be no argument. Again, if there was no pre-established definition of marriage, there would be no argument! The fact is, people are trying to change the concept of marriage.

But dont you think the concept should be open to interpretation as we move forward in society with regards to equality with this issue. Thats whats happening now. over the "concept of marriage" The word concept can have many definitions also. Definitions of words do evolve over time. It could mean an abstract or general idea inferred or derived from specific instances. Or, familiarly, something conceived in the mind, as in a thought or notion, especially when it concerns generalization from particular instances. Maybe, a general notion around which ideas are developed.

I beleive the main reason many people are motivated to vote to retain the definition of marriage is the underlying idea that it represents a specific (normal) relationship. You could say thats a "nice" distinction. And I mean that in the original sense of the word nice illustrateing the problem of supposed fidelity to language.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=nice

'nice' originally meant silly, or foolish. It derived from the lation nescius, ignorant. It took on the meaning of "timid," and evolved into fastidious, or fussy. From there, it came to mean precise, or careful. It ultimately ended up with its present definition of "thoughtful," or "agreeable."

Now, you may inveigh against the dilution of the meaning of 'nice,' and insist it return to its thirteenth century meaning. But in my view, you'd be foolish (nice, eh?) to do that, because the natural conclusion is that you want us to be speaking Old English.

The absurdity of that question highlights in sharp relief the inescapable fact that language evolves. It's a natural consequence of language.

On the other hand, we should correctly resist any language change that robs us of an ability to make a useful or material distinction.

So it seem to me that if we insist that "marriage" should be retained to identify a male-female pairng, we must identify why, specifically, this identification is of value to us.

 

[shira]

Again, this is not meant to convince you. It is clear both sides will not listen.

The point is, arguments do exist which are neither hateful nor religious.

And exactly what is an Appeal to Tradition fallacy?

The fact that non-religious "arguments exist" is not the issue. COGENT arguments is the issue. The argument you posted isn't cogent. It states that there's a longstanding tradition of recognizing heterosexual marriages. But what does THAT statement have to do with recognizing same-sex marriages?

Answer: Nothing. It's an argument that PRETENDS that recognizing same-sex marriages is somehow equivalent to no longer recognizing heterosexual marriages or giving them less recognition. That's a gigantic lie.

Please post a COGENT argument as to why same-sex marriages should not be allowed. I'll bet you can't. I've never seen one. And I'm not "just being difficult."

 

[ebaycj]

The word refers to a concept.

All nouns refer to concepts or objects. Therefore you are arguing the definition of a noun.

 

[ebaycj]

Heh, I will take pot shots at any and all the Politically Correct crowd who tries to get what they want not by their own hardwork, skill or knowledge but because of reverse discrimination.

And by the way, I know plenty of stable gay couple, including my MBA dean 10+ years back who was openly lesbian. But unfortunately they are in the minority, and they are silent. All the vocal gay parade people just keep sending the negative message. Marriage is THE most basic foundation of human society and if we as human is smart, we wouldn't mess with it. And messing with it because of Politically Correctness is simply dumb.

The non-bolded part shows me that you are extremely bigoted and intolerant of gays.

The bolded part tells me you are stupid or ignorant or (most likely) both.

It's not about "political correctness". Political Correctness is about being polite when referring to things like race, gender, sexual orientation, etc.. For example, calling someone a "homosexual man" instead of a "i love you" or a "homo" or a "ass-pirate". Or, another example, calling someone "african american" or "black" instead of "spades" or "n*gg*rs". Or, another example, calling someone who has Down's syndrome "mentally challenged" instead of calling them "retarded" or "a retard".

Political Correctness refers to how you talk about people. It's not about denying them basic human rights (which, apparently, you want to do as well).