Thoughts on Gay Marriage
 

I am a Liberal from good old Massachusetts where gay marriage is now legal. I have been watching the people on the news who are against gay marriage, and they all seem to argue that gay marriage is wrong because it defies nature. The other argument I keep on hearing is that the bible says its wrong. So I have a question for all you Anti-Gay Marriage citizens out there. Why are you against gay marriage? Is it just because of the arguments I have listed, or are there different reasons?

The funny thing is that the parts of Leviticus commonly cited as "evidence" that being gay is wrong also condemn:
- the wearing of wool and linen at the same time
- require a father to kill a son who curses him
- require a couple to be killed if they have sex during the woman's menstruation
- require a woman to sacrifice two doves after every menstruation period

Obviously, people are being a little choosy when they just pick the homosexuality part and leave out the rest.

But, like the rest of that section, considering homosexuals somehow a lesser people is an old-fashioned idea. Mixed racial marriages were once against the law and "against nature." In fact, you can read some statements from the 50's on that and they read exactly like the arguments today against same-sex marriages.

People being born today will look back on this time period in the same way we look back on the 50's. They will think "what kind of backward people thought that same-sex marriage was wrong?"

I do not see anything worthwhile about the entire concept of marriage for gay, straight, or any other type of human being.

I agree 100%.

Other than for the tax breaks, there's really no point in it.

To answer the topic: it's nobody's business what other people decide to do. If two guys want to get married, there shouldn't be any problem.

To this day, I haven't heard a valid argument as to why gay marriage should be illegal other than closed minded religous types who babble on about it having some kind of negative effect on society (in fact, I think religion has a more negative effect on society than two guys getting married).

I too would like to hear some intelligent responses on this subject from those against it.

Marriage is.. Let's prove to our friends and families and the world that you really want only me by signing here, spending all of our money and theirs on a party for people that we dont like anyway.nothing more.imo

Re: Thoughts on Gay Marriage
 

The reason I am against Gay marriage is the slippery slope argument. If we start by letting Gay people get married, then we have to start letting people who want to be married to multiple people get married. And if you want to marry an animal (technically property, so it's ok), then that should be okay too.

Well, then why are you for interracial marriage? It used to be forbidden. It isn't now. It didn't lead to beastiality.

Why are you for interfaith marriage? It used to be forbidden. It isn't now. It didn't lead to beastiality.

The problem with the "slippery slope" argument is twofold:
1 - Why didn't the previous step on the slope lead to the "slide" down the slope?

2 - It equates gay marriage with polygamy and beastiality. Gay marriage is 1 to 1, not many to one. And it's an expression of love between two people.

The polygamy argument is with some merit though. I have some polygamous friends, and their lives always seem to be a mess and full of drama. I'd be willing to let people give it a go though, I don't have any serious problem with polygamy. Benefits such as medical coverage and estate inheritance would get a bit complex though.

Re: Re: Thoughts on Gay Marriage
 

Meh.... the "its always been that way" argument is very weak.

Remember slavery.... that was OK because "we've always done it"

In an interracial marriage, procreation is still possible. Same with an interfaith marriage. You guys don't get my point. It doesn't matter what the marriage means, people will scream "equal rights" over the stupidest shit if we start by letting Gay people get married. Then it's equal rights for the guy that wants ten wives and the guy that wants to marry his sheep. I'm not saying gay marriage is the same as marrying your dog, but "if you can't help who you fall in love with" and "we're both consenting individuals" then we have to let everyone get married to anyone they want to. That's not what marriage was supposed to evolve into.

And who is to decide what marriage is supposed to evolve to?

I for one prefer they just remove marriage there in the first place (as pointed out above by others)

And above all, IMO, i don't think its the right of the government to decide what people do in their bedrooms nor should they be allowed to

Besides, in a country where a huge % of marriages end in divorce, what has become so 'sacred' about it as many like to say? Hell I get the feeling sometimes that gay marriage will at least last longer or stay together more frequently than regular marriage out there...

It just doesn't make sense

Gay people should be just as entitled to make the same dumbass mistakes as straight people.

On the topic of the slippery slope logical fallacy, here are some other examples:

"Slippery slope means predicting without justification that one step in a process will lead unavoidably to a second, generally undesirable step."

Just to play the devil's advocate for a moment...

What's wrong with somebody marrying more than one person? Isn't that idea pretty popular in the bible, god's inaction in the face of polygamy seems to be at the very least, a show of tolerance. What's wrong with polygamy. What's wrong with marrying an animal? Who gets hurt?

The definition of an acceptable marriage is something that has changed throughout history and is also a relatively common means of those with the majority opinion to control and keep themselves separate from minority groups.

Furthermore, it is difficult to convincingly condemn an emerging trend such as homosexual marriage or the theoretical human/animal marriage with no evidence of any kind of any positive or negative results from said trends. More to the point, such things have never happened before and you have no way of knowing whether they will result in an overall increase or decrease in the quality of life of the average human being.

That being said, the slippery slope argument always seems to boil down to "Well, it doesn't really seem like a good idea to me", which isn't always the best way to make decisions that affect millions of people. I think that if we truly are a nation that respects the religious rights of all of our citizens and marriage is truly a religious institution than i can't see how we as a nation have any choice other than to honor a religious commitment that has not proven to harm any on its participants or society in general.

Re: Re: Thoughts on Gay Marriage
 

Um. Didn't you know that a slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy? :confused:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...ery-slope.html

*edit* oops, I see ppl have already pointed this out.

You make a good point on polygamy. This is one example of a marriage right that was common in many cultures in history and then was taken away. Like I said, I don't personally have a problem with it, although I don't think that a mormon, for example, who marries eight wives and has 20 kids should be eligible for welfare assistance. On the other hand, there are so few polygamists that I don't think the tax burden would be that great outside of Utah.

Re: Re: Thoughts on Gay Marriage
 

I don't get this argument. In other countries where gay marriages are allowed, they still don't marry other animals. Why would this happen in the US?

Re: Re: Thoughts on Gay Marriage
 

What's wrong with marrying more than one person?

I don't find anything wrong with it. If man wants to marry 5 women and they all know about it, who cares? I certainly don't.

As I said, marriage is a public policy issue and polygamy has several potential negative effects on welfare, taxes, gov't responsibility, etc.

Correct, but the consequences can be regulated. The tax code is now some 1700 pages.
If men or women wish to marry several people they should be allowed. I should not have used the word "Marriage".

We all need to be discussing ways to make civil unions the answer.

As it stands now the courts, the medical establishments, the financial and estate laws make it very hard for a true loved one to take part.

Create civil unions, allow gays, and polygamists to have the rights we all have, but don't call it marriage.

Why not?

I'm OK with that, but, since marriage from a government perspective is mainly a tax, benefits, and estate issue it would be quite thorny to work out polygamy.

Some examples:
- You work and have three wives, does your family coverage cover everyone? Do you have to pay more per wife? Is this discriminatory against family plans that don't charge more per kid? (Age discrimination against the wives!)
- You die without a will. All three of your wives claim that they deserve your estate. I guarantee you that existing estate law doesn't cover this. :)
- You die and owe taxes. Your youngest wife claims that only the oldest wife is responsible for paying them.

Polygamy is a can of worms that I don't think government rules are ready for yet. I'm not against the idea in general. But, I think the country is ready for gay marriage.

As you know, I've lived with sus and mimi for many years. I don't have anything to say about "polygamy" either.

I actually don't comprehend this need humans have to institutionalize and politicalize the personal.

Yep. Exactly.

Yeah, Art, other than a clear inheritance path and some convenience when it comes to rights-of-visitation in hospitals and such, I'm not sure what marriage would give to polygamists (other than higher taxes). :)

Right, you can do joint-ownership and other business-type contracts. I mean, it's just people making agreements with each other.

[broken record]
The government has no business whatsoever defining marriage or enforcing such a definition.
[/broken record]

Then they should make laws to cover it or at least impose restrictions since multiple spouses would be involved.

But as for gay marriages.. there's no reason to make it illegal.

I know logically that making Gay Marriage illegal is discrimination and the government shouldn't be involved with what is going on in my bedroom, but I just can't seem to shake the feeling that I don't think Gay people should be allowed to get married. And the funny thing is, I am not a religious person. I don't think this because God said it was wrong, blah blah blah... I just don't think that is the way things are supposed to be. But I am all for a Civil Union. I think the difference is, with Marriage, then people would be allowed the legality of adopting children. Maybe that's my issue? And I still fully believe in the Slippery Sloap argument (even though some of you are saying is a logical fallacy because it doesn't help your argument),so I think it's that as well.

Could you please explain? In other countries where gay marriages are legal, people are not marrying horses or dogs. Why would that happen in the US?

To anybody that is against gay marriage, I have one thing to say:

Don't Marry Someone Who Is Gay.

Pro -Life?
Don't have an abortion.

Against the NRA?
Don't buy a gun.
etc.....................

Gay people can, right now, all across America, adopt children legally. And, once again, the problem with the "slippery slope" is that you can't provide justification as to why gay marriage, this one single issue, will inevitably lead to polygamy, bigamy, and bestiality. When you can provide that logical justification, then your argument has worth.

Slippery Slope is a negative term. It is used to show your argument has no legitimacy whatsoever.

As to civil unions/marriage. Why take purposefully complicated steps to pretend it's not really the same thing at all?

All 'only civil union' advocates are doing is protecting a word.

Marriage shouldn't be in the legal vocabulary anyway. But since it is, and since it confers a very specific and binding set of rights to a couple, fundamentalists have given up its claim to being purely religous. It has become a legal term and any two people who want to have that type of legal relationship should be allowed to.

Against Rape? Don't Rape Anyone!

Against Stealing? Don't rob!


Your argument isn't too convincing. :)

My statement was not meant to create anamosity, but to differentiate what may be considered public domain, from what we may decide should not be. I feel my "argument" is actually quite convincing, should you decide to consider the implications of it, rather than simply react. In your reaction however, you simply decided to throw completely unrelated issues into what was a relatively benign opinion.

I have found this somewhat common in your "debate" techniques, and thus generally refrain from reply to the bait. In fact I don't really know why I am writting this, as it is likely to add fuel to a fire that should have never even started. But here you go......

Against Rape?
don't treat women as sexual objects (unless you are invited)

Against Theft?
Dont Steal

No brainers here....in my opinion. But these issues are in the realm of public safety, and common good.

If you wish to debate the differences between, Gay Marriage/Abortion/ and Gun ownership. And Rape /and Theft, I will be happy to in a seperate thread, rather than hijack this one, which has potential.

so, let me see if i have this right... the only reasons you're against gay people from getting married is because it doesn't feel right and because, who knows, it could lead to polygamy and beastiality.

and you're trying to say that saying slippery slope is a logical fallicy doesn't help the pro-gay marriage argument? pot... meet kettle...

/sorry if that came off sounding assholish... not my intent.

Hrm? You post a couple of oversimplified polemics, I reply with the same, and now *I* am the bad guy who ruined Christmas for everyone?

Your clarifications use a different scope than your original statement. Let's compare:

"Against gay marriage? Don't marry someone who is gay."

with:

"Against rape? Don't treat women as sexual objects (unless invited)."

Leaving aside a personal problem I have with your equating treating woman as sexual objects with rape, what you're saying isn't the same.

The people who are against gay marriage are against it for themselves AND for others. The people who are against abortion are against it for themselves AND for others. My point, in bringing rape into the equation, was to show the fallacy in your argument. I am, of course, against rape, not just rape committed by me but also by others.

So, my point was to show the fallacy of your off-the-cuff remarks about Gun Ownership, and Abortion as some sort of moral compass for gay marriage. All topics which you introduced to the thread, not me.

If there is a pattern to my comments, it is that I don't like weak arguments. We both agree on the core point, that gay marriage should be legal.

Geesh, I make one little comment and I'm suddenly the Grinch. :)

Civil unions are already common in many states and provide the same rights as marriage. Why are people fighting for the title of marriage in the first place? I think we have another attempt by a certain group in society that feels the need to prove itself by going against the establishment. I just don't see the point.

Why are people exerting so much energy preventing gay couples from gaining the marriage label in the first place?

Vermont, Arizona, and Hawaii. That isn't exactly the threshold for "many" in my opinion. And these gay people who want to get married aren't "going against the establishment" - they want to join the establishment.

Great point, and well said.

Colored schools are already operating and co-existing with white schools. Why do we need to integrate? It's the same thing, isn't it?

Okay, leaving aside the obvious issue that segregated schools were not equal at all, the Court struck down the entire framework of "separate but equal" for a reason.