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.

So it doesn't seem like there are many gay marriage opponents here, but here is a modest proposal that I'm sure has been put forward before.

How about making marriage a religious institution that is blessed by your church only, not by the govt. and confers no legal benefits. Then make a govt. institution called civil union that has all the legal benefits of marriage that is available to any two people who want those benefits.
This way when a couple wants to get married, they would go to the church and get married, then down to the courthouse to fill out a document for a civil union. Or it could happen in any order you wanted. That way the goverment is out of the business of deciding who's religion is right and churches can decide who they want to marry.

So what's wrong with that idea? (other than that it will never happen because of entrenched bureaucracies and idiolgies.)

Your parenthetical comment is pretty much the only thing wrong with it.

I actually agree with you 100%, and could not have said it better.

In my opinion the government has learned there's money to be made in politicizing and institutionalizing the personal.

And religions have learned the easiest way to control the masses and do what the religious leaders bid is to inspire fear, retribution and guilt by saying what you do now affects your afterlife and your eternity, instead of just your here and now.

When one of the religious tenets or canons are then challenged the religion has to strike out and inspire more fear, and use political control to keep the flocks in line. For if they don't and lose that particular tenet or canon or whatever you'd like to call it, they lose a certain amount of control over the people's lives, and fear vanishes even more.

While, not always a bad thing that religion uses this technique, it does hinder progress and it does at times send civilization back into a warlike conciousness.

....so it seems everyone agrees that a traditional marriage serves absolutely no social benefit to a "democratic" society, an any attempt to define and limit marriage further than a contract between two consenting individuals is an infringement of that persons civil liberties.

Well, marriage is a religious institution with what I believe social benefits. It's broader than two peoples confessing their lifelong commitment to one another, it extends further than legal benefits (in many peoples eyes). In essence, society is consenting to this "marriage."

Should one gay person that has devoted his life to a partner be denied legal leverage when it comes to matters of medical care for their loved one - absoltely not. But that's not what marriage is.

So in respone to Sparhawk's "Why are people exerting so much energy preventing gay couples from gaining the marriage label in the first place?" - Why are you fighting for it. What your really trying to say is exactly what ART said - marriage means nothing and serves no social benefit. There should be no marriage, and this contract should extend no further than the individuals that agree to it.

I'm trying to just be a lurker - there was just too much love in this thread - i had to break it up

yeah, I wanted to make sure to mention the obvious problem so that no one could jump all over it.

One of the interesting things about this solution is that it points out the stupidness of govenment having a say over a religious instituion.

The 'slippery slope' argument is so laughable i'm surprised anyone bothers debating it.

Let's combine some classic slippery-slope arguments... porn leads to rape... gay marriage will lead to polygamy and beastiality... buying weapons means you intend to hurt people. So i guess since i watch porn, think gay marriage is ok, and like weapons, I'm going to eventually wind up knife-raping a nun while I give hand jobs to my 4 husbands and suck off a horse.

This type of argument never has, cannot now, and never will prove anything to anyone with half a brain in their head.

History will record these days, and we will all look back in wonder, years from now, curious how anyone could be so closed-minded. Currently, we think this about slaves, racism, and bigotry. At some point, lots of us thought the earth was flat- including Kings and Queens. We thought that making a machine that could fly in the air was absurd. We once thought that diseases were caused by evil spirits, and that women should NEVER be allowed to own property or to vote. Even as recently as a few years ago, we thought that Mars could never have sustained life... and yet now we all know not only did it once have water on it, there were vast oceans.

I have never seen an anti-gay-marriage sentiment that made any sense, actually used any fact to back up wild assertions about tax laws, or be anything other than logically and in all other ways flawed to hell.

It's called progress, people. Marriage is a word. Let them hold hands, recognize it, and give them equal rights that hetero couples in love do.

I can't wait to pull "i told you so"s out of my pocket when i'm old. It's gonna be great.

Just the thought of that has made me lose my appetite for the week, possibly longer....... Thanks Analog.

"... gay marriage will lead to polygamy and beastiality... "

Yeah no one ever said gay marriage caused polygamy and beastiality.

Marriage means something to some people. What proponents of gay marriage are saying is, we're just broadening the definition just a tiny lil bit, but promise it will stop there. The slippery slope argument is perfectly ligimitimate in this case. You're other examples were way over simplified as well. The ironic thing i'm noticing is people pointing out the inherant fallicies in the "slippery slope" argument when the first time i ever heard the term mentioned on this board (on multiple occasions) was from pro-choice liberals arguing against any form of abortion regulation.

It seems to me your fighting for some sort of definition of marriage - so marriage "as a word" apparently means something to you. It doesn't mean 1st cousins can get married, it doesn't mean i can marry a goat, but it does mean i can marry my bud. You are fighting for a definition of marriage, and berating others for fighting for thier's.

I don't believe you think much of marriage, so why bother. Get right to the heart of it. Say what your thinking, marriage doesn't have a place in this society, and then argue that.

Yes. Someone did. That's why we are discussing it. Re-read the thread. :)

It's also a common defense by NRA 2nd amendment advocates, along the line of "if we allow any gun regulation then the liberals will ban all guns up to and including slingshots." The funny thing is that those people usually favor *some* form of gun control. Say, no guns for convicted child-killer felons on the day they get out of jail.

In the same way, very few abortion advocates favor abortion past the first trimester.

So, in almost every case an "all or nothing" argument is invalid because it really isn't all-or-nothing, people just frame it that way to make it more polarizing.

It's just a word.

What's the name of that thing, you know that big thing inside cars that makes them go? Ah, whatever, it doesn't matter what it's called, it serves the same purpose. I could call it an ass stain. I have a 3.8L V6 ass stain under the hood. Goes 0-60 in 6.3 seconds.

"...a rose by any other name would smell as sweet..." - Juilet, Romeo and Juilet, William Shakespeare

They're just words. Let 2 LGBTG (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) people love each other, and give their love the same respect and rights you give hetero people. Call it what you want.

The establishment I was referring to is the current state of laws. On that issue, you're nitpicking. You never did address my point. Why is marriage such a big deal, since these people are already living together and screwing anyways? Are they looking for tax breaks? What is it? It seems to me to be a cry for attention and a need to force other people to give validity to their lifestyle.

Furthermore, marriage itself is a pretty much a social construct. Maybe it needs a bit of definition to keep people from marrying sheep, etc. As to the love part or the social progress part, that's laughable. I don't believe in either. Society hasn't advanced past Roman times, and love is fading like belief in God, but you're free to believe in either. Thankfully, delusion isn't a crime.

You're not special (not YOU specifically, i'm speaking in the infinite "you") because your sex and/or love partner has opposite sex organs from you.

They deserve the same consideration and rights as you.

But, let's play devil's advocate here. Let's remove the rights you have (infinite you) as a married person, since 'the gays must just want attention'. If they don't need it, neither do you.

Your husband or wife falls ill, gets sent to the hospital. No, you can't see them. No, you have no right to. They wither, alone, for months. They cannot speak to ask for you, and are in horrible, excruciating pain. Their family does things you know they would never allow- but you have no say in the matter. By law, you could be removed from the hospital premises by force and charged with various things.

Sorry, they're dead now- but you had to read about it in the obituaries, the doctor won't tell you. You have no right to that information. I hope they print the time you can view the body publicly, if the family is allowing that, otherwise you'll never even see them buried. The person you love dearly, who completes you, who you share your soul with- is dead.

Oh, and the home you two built together- which was in your beloved's name- yeah, you don't live there anymore. It went to the kids. You're now trespassing in "your own home". So goes your car, which was under their name. All the money you put aside, in their name?

Ha. Not in this country, bucko, we don't respect the rights of two people in love.

Thanks Analog, you summed up some stuff I was going to type up earlier in the thread.

I don't think people realize just how estate law and visitation rules at hospitals work. In many cases, you have rights that you CANNOT give away or assign to just anyone. For example, you CANNOT just sign a power of attorney and let a loved one come visit you or make decisions for you in the hospital. The hospitals get to make the rules. And no matter how iron-clad you try to leave your estate to your gay lover, there are many ways in which family, even if you hated them, can make claim to your estate.

With HIPAA regulations, hospitals are even worse now.

Great summary, analog, thanks. As you basically said, I think the next generation will look back on this issue the same way we look back on the interracial marriage issue that our parents and grandparents went through. They will think "how could those backwards-ass old fogies think stuff like this?"

My argument is that people like you don't have the monopoly on definining how certain words can be used. You pretend that the definition of an acceptable marriage hasn't changed more times than the justification for invading iraq.


I can just imagine a suitable representative for your position circa thirty or forty years ago:

-or, probably even further back-

The point is that you cling to exactly one definition for a word whose definition has clearly changed numerous times to fit whatever society is using it. When the crux of your argument against something is based on whether or not to use a specific word, especially when said word has had an evolving definition since before your messiah was born, your position is a sham.

Hey, that would totally work for me.

I'm not trying to sound like a bigot, I'm just confused as to why I feel the way I go but can't logically back it up. So stop attacking me. I'm not here to fight to the death like it seems a lot of you are out to do, I just want to express my opinion.

Alright, given that you want gay marriages because of the potential abuses resulting from a hospital stay while you were incapacitated, why not afford the same rights to an institution known as a civil union? Why, specifically, does it have to be marriage?

I would like also to comment that some states are breaking federal law to let these gay marriages take place, a clear violation of any semblance of order here in this country. Following this lead, states and even individuals are encouraged to break any laws that go against their beliefs on what society should be.

And the slope gets slippier...

Why do you and your ilk get to define marriage?

And to your second point. We all remember what a boon to crime all of the sit-ins were during the civil rights movement. People were all like "Well, if those negros can just go in and sit at a white lunch counter just because they don't agree with the idea that they don't deserve the same rights as white people than i think i should be able to go out and rob as many banks as i want because i don't agree with any law that says i can't rob banks."

In case you're not aware, civil disobedience has a rich tradition in america. Hello boston tea party.

Finally, I receive an answer from someone. You want the very definition of marriage changed. It seems like a lot of effort to go to to change a word, but alright. I don't see this as a matter of civil disobedience. The Boston Tea Party was about getting unfair taxes removed, not changing what taxes mean. If I'm missing the hospital issue in here, maybe hospital laws can be changed to accomodate non-married couples too. We have power of attorney and definition as the only basis established so far to change who can specifically be known as a married couple. Hmm. I thump this argument a few times, and it still sounds hollow.

Changing the definition of marriage isn't civil disobedience, like i said, i was addressing your second point, the one where you claim that civil disobedience makes everybody more likely to break the law.

As it stands, i don't want the definition of marriage changed, i want people like you to realize that your definition of marriage lacks a much needed link with the reality of the history of the word marriage. You use a defintion of marriage that allows you to exclude others from something for reasons that i have yet to hear rationally expressed. To you marriage is hetero and monogamous and fruitful, whereas historically, marriage has been defined as a multitude of different relationships. For you to claim that your way is the only way is laughable and lacking in honesty.

Maybe you can finally give me an answer: Why is it that the people who favor the denial of gay marriage rights believe that they are they only people with the right to use and define the term "marriage"?

http://sinfest.net/comics/sf20040318.gif
http://sinfest.net/comics/sf20040319.gif

An interesting view.

You know, the whole gay marriage thing is difficult for me. I am against it morally, not because of the bible, but just how I was raised, but at the same time I have a sister in-lawy who has a long-term companion, and a friend in he same situation. It's hard for me to really think what they are doing as wrong as they are more commited to each other than most married folks I know who are hetrosexual. I guess it seems to me that it's just the term marriage I am opposed to, and if it was named something else I wouldn't care. Guess that makes me a hypocrite.

Well, I suppose the dictionary has the final say on what a word means, but you can invent any definition you want. I find it amusing that you think when a state disobeys federal law, that equals civil disobedience. I would say I have the right to define personal definitions. I have no more justification in the naming of something than you, but you seem determined to define the word for everyone. All I can do is examine what a word means in the context of how it is used and the given history of the word. Marriage in the dictionary is defined as a legal union between a man and a woman as husband and wife. I see no need to extend that definition to anyone else for any reason. Civil union means much the same but any gender, and it already exists. The laws of marriage currently define what it is and how it is used. I see no reason to change that. I take more issue with people getting married in a church than anything else and other inattention to separation of church and state, being an atheist. Yet I don't go out and cause a big stir to get every legal document and the Pledge of Allegiance to remove the mention of God. The big debate over gay marriage is more rabble rousing by a minority special interest group for no apparent cause.

This may surprise you filterton but i haven't set foot in a church in probably 15 years, so i couldn't in good conscience lay claim to some "messaih."

To keep it simple: A traditional marriage (i.e- nuclear family) is a religious institution with social benefits, and as such the government has a vested interest in encouraging. Race, differeng faiths, etc. plado not affect this stability.

It boils down to - I believe that a one Mom and one dad is in general the healthiest environment for a child to grow up in. Now before you point to 50% of all marriages ending in divorce etc etc, I think the reason for this is because marriage means next to nothing to people anymore. Marriage is "just a word" and a vow is "just a sentence." You've fallen in love in the last three days? - run to Vegas. You're arguing over who's gonna do the dishes? - fuck your neighbors wife and leave your current one. I don't think the divorce rate is a good rationalization for writing the insitution off.

Off topic, humurous little story - Overheard some overspoken jackass at a bar ask a gay bartender out of the blue "What do you think of gay marriage?" He must have been drunk and just looking for an argument or to piss someone off (but of all poeple the guy who's serving your drinks).

So much to his surprise the bartender says "Oh my god, I'm totally against it!!"

"HUH???!!, How come?"

"Cause that would just make me an old maid"

Without sounding too pompous, I don't have too. I'm saying with 100% confidence no one said it the way analog apparently interpreted it. No one said if you believe in gay marriage you're going to start having sex with farm animals. However this person articulated themselves, everyone here knows what he meant - extending the definition of marriage to gays will eventually lead to extending it to polygamists, etc. (i.e.-pointing to the slippery slope argument).

Now it's all making sense, now i see why you don't think the slippery slope is in the least bit valid. It's because you believe that it in essence says if you watch porn you'll rape people, if you are for gay marriage you'll rape animals.

so much time wasted on semantics...you all know what he meant.

People people people (those against gay marriage)... society is moving forward while you are remaining behind. Plain and simple.

You are trying to justify arguments that cannot be justified. Your parents/grandparents grew up in a time when the country believed that blacks and whites should be separated. Remember... colored bathrooms, water fountains, sit at the back of the bus, etc? You know why we don't have that today? Because it was wrong. We (as a society) understand how wrong it is now so many years down the road, but at the time no one understood how and why it was wrong because they had their heads shoved so far up their asses.

Being against gay marriage is no different than being FOR a segregated society. In this case, you are promoting and encouraging exclusion of another person based on sexual preference instead of skin color.

How can you NOT understand this?

Yesterday
http://www.farmworkers.org/bracero5/nosign.GIF
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/...white.only.jpg

Today
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com...test_la104.jpg

And I truly believe that this opposition to gay marriage will define him in the future. Especially since he is pushing for a constitutional ammendment. Much like how George Wallace, and Strom Thurmond have been defined.

wow. Pretty powerfull. The plight of the black man 30 years ago sure does come in handy sometimes doesn't it. Thanks Alphonzo.'

Being that this demographic is one of the most outspoken critics of gay marriage, i'd love to hear you explain this correlation to them.

I know very well that the black demographic is one of the most socially conservative groups in america. Just because we can identify the hypocracy of that sad fact, doesn't make the comparison less true.

I hate to rain on your parade, but your traditional marriage is a result of your traditions. You can't pretend that all marriages fit your definition of traditional and you can't pretend to know what's best for individuals or society in general based on your traditions. Besides, what makes your traditions so much more useful than anyone else's so that you feel the need to force all others to conform to your definition of what marriage should be.

Well, if you believe it to be true, than by all means, let's pass a constitutional amendment based on one man's common sense observation. Until you can provide some kind of proof as to the unquestioned superiority of the nuclear family in terms of child rearing, don't use that as a basis for your argument. Besides, we aren't talking about which kinds of relationships are more conducive to raising children here.

I agree with this, but gay marriage isn't your problem here, since marriage as an institution has been crumbling since long before a gay couple ever got married.


Let's check the dictionary, shall we.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...iage&x=13&y=24

1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
b : the mutual relation of married persons : WEDLOCK c : the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage
2 : an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities
3 : an intimate or close union <the marriage of painting and poetry -- J. T. Shawcross>

italics added by me.

It's like i've been trying to say. Words are living things whose definitions change to suit whomever is using them. You don't own words and you aren't the sole definer of that which our culture may deem relevant.

I missed the report where civil unions were already in functional existence in america.

So you take issue with people exercising what should be their religious freedoms as protected in the constitution? That's really swell of you, especially in light of the lack of any evidence that gay marriage will have any, ANY negative effect on the quality of life of society in general. Good for you, as long as you get to keep your definition of the word marriage.


If you can't see an apparent cause than i think we should stop talking. Clearly you're playing games for the sake of argument. Unless you think the civil rights movement was just rabble rousing by a minority special interest group for no apparent cause too. In which case you need to take your cold, unfeeling robot self back to the 25th century.

"but your traditional marriage is a result of your traditions. You can't pretend that all marriages fit your definition of traditional and you can't pretend to know what's best for individuals or society in general based on your traditions. Besides, what makes your traditions so much more useful than anyone else's so that you feel the need to force all others to conform to your definition of what marriage should be."

My traditions? Marriage being exclusive between a man and a woman are a result of MY traditions, and i am forcing them on society as a whole. This is what marriage has meant since it's inception, everywhere (at least to my knowledge). I'm not forcing them on anyone, to the contrary it appears gay people are forcing themselves on everyone else.

And what do we have this traditional marriage to compare to to date. Single parent homes? what else? I think the statistics/evidence is enough to prove which is a better environment for children. Therefore I think that this burden falls on you:

"Until you can provide some kind of proof as to the unquestioned superiority of the nuclear family in terms of child rearing, don't use that as a basis for your argument."

....what do you mean, you can't PROVE that there won't be some negative impact to on society/children (whichever), then that shouldn't be the basis of your argument.

actually, marriage as we know it is really not that old, in relative terms. originally, marriage was nothing more than a contract. that's where dowery's come from. in india, there are still arrainged marraige, and in the states, dowery's were still used in the 18th century, i think. i'm pretty sure that's where the whole bride's family paying for the wedding tradition came from. in american society, polyamy was practiced for a while, and outside of america, marriage has been legal between one man and multiple women (still legal in some muslim countries) and in the past was nothing more than a business arraingement, a way of solidifying relations between family's and nations. so the "one man one woman" may be the predominant thing today and for the last 100 years, marraige has not always been that way and it has not always been about love.

/unreadable rant, over.

right - i guess i typed faster than i thought, that should have been obvious enough.

I was wondering....are you married?

I am, and have been for quite some time. Was married by my mother(ordained) and have a wonderful life with great kids and government supported benefits. What a sweet life it is.
As I also have friends who are of different sexual orientation than myself, I would very much like them to enjoy such a pleasant life, and be recognized by society as having the rights, and responsibilities that I enjoy.

Guess this is simply too much to ask.

I have a feeling filtherton wants to corner me into saying that I'm against gays, therefore that's why I'm against gay marriage. The two are actually mutually exclusive concepts. I've heard others who accept the lifestyle still oppose gay marriage. Arguing over a definition is a silly thing. At some point, we all have to agree on what a word means. Otherwise, no communication would be possible because everyone would be speaking their own invented language. Maybe this is the real problem today.

I agree with matthew330 that a natural (in the sense of a species carrying on its numbers and instilling some sense of gender) union of opposites sexes is the best environment for children. I don't see how people can argue that because polygamy has existed in some parts of the world at various times, then my definition of the word must be wrong and any arguments I might have had with it. However, if you accept the argument that every word is personally defined, then I can never be wrong about what any word means because I'll always be defining it based on my own criteria. That's a little extreme, but you can see my point.

Segregation isn't even remotely related to this issue. The two issues are so far apart it isn't even funny. What is funny is that even after all these years of desegregation, some recent studies show that races tend to stick to their own kind in group environments like school and prison. I smell another thread brewing for that one.

On my comment about separation of church and state, I'm saying that why do practically all people get married in a church, regardless of whether they are religious or not. The practice has become a standard. That's why I mentioned it. Marriage and religion are so closely related in this country that it's unbelievable. I mean, how many people don't get married by a priest of some kind? I don't see this argument as a game, but I would appreciate being called a bastard, instead of a robot. Don't take the cop out route of arguing that the time we live in has anything to do with an argument. I could show you many ways in which modern society is not any better than previous cultures. All I'm saying is that gays could be arguing for civil unions, instead of the word marriage. Thus they dodge the religious bullet somewhat in their quest for marital benefits or God knows what. It would be very hard to argue that religion and marriage are separate in this country.

I'm liking the conversations we're generating here, but we need to lighten up on the sarcastic jibes and snide remarks, and stick to the subject matter please.

Much appreciated.

-analog.

My aplogies....*bows out*

i honestly would love for you to start a thread on why you think modern society is no better than previous ones.

Well, if were going talk of marriage in a traditional sense, than we can't really outlaw polygamy, can we. As for the terms of a traditional marriage, is it not traditional for a woman to become her husband's de facto property? How far back does your concept of tradition go? The problem i have with your DOMA is that you use the word tradition like your tradition is the only one. You use the word marriage like it has a set-in-stone definition handed down by some marriage legislator from time immemorial. If you're going to play the tradition card you can't do so without acknowledging the fact that tradition changes, and is by its very nature subject to the whims of the society that employs it. Your traditions aren't the traditions of the whole world, and you'd probably be horrified if they were.


I mean that there is no basis for your position that a child raised by a two father household will be any worse off than one raised by a father/mother household.


The problem is that a select group of people think that they own a word and refuse to let another group use it even though the first group is very hard-pressed to provide a consistent, logically sound reason for denying them access to said word.

Do you also agree that you lack any evidence for such an assertion?

Words are powerful things. If you base an argument on the idea that a traditional marriage is a monogomous, reciprocal, respectful relationship than it kind of puts a damper on said argument if you completely leave out what traditional marriage has been for most of the history of civilization.

I gave you the dictionary definition that you asked for. You must realize that you(the impersonal you) personally define every word that you use. You have to, you can't understand anything unless you put it in terms that you understand and can relate to. I think your problem is that you think that your definition is the real one and that others are trying to co-opt it. The ironic thing is that you have already co-opted it for yourself, hence your rush to define marriage as something it has, for thousands of years, not been. You seem to think that marriage has not been a rite of ownership, a means to transfer familial wealth or a way forge alliances with other families. Marriage is and has been all of these things, but to you the only definition of marriage is the one you try to use against those who you would deem unfit to carry the torch of marriage. Marriage is what it is, and for you to attempt to claim a monopoly on it usage is a bit presumptuous.

Don't be so quick to separate the two issues when both are so clearly a matter of civil rights.


What if gays took a different route. There are at least a handful of christian denominational churches in our nation who allow and even perform gay marriages. You must realize that by trying to deny them this you are in effect stifling their ability to practice their religion in peace. I don't think you'll get a lot of the folks screaming for the ten commandments in courthouses to acknowledge this fact though.

The only necessary component of marriage on the government level is power of attorney/right to inheritance. Polygamy and healthcare? each additional wife costs as much as a dependent on your health plan. Homosexual couples and inheritance? that's what a willl is for. Non-traditional unions and power of attorney? living will.

If you want marriage, go to your preferred place of worship and get married. If you want all the legal issues settled, write out a living will, a will, and a contract dictating who owns/gets what (just like a prenuptual now) and have it notarized. Make it a condition of the contract that it is null and void if both parties put notarized signatures on the dotted line.

A newsletter from a pastor i know(names edited):

'nuff said.

You said a mouthful. Thanks for posting that.

What denomination is the pastor? It makes a huge difference.

He's got a master's degree in theology, which means a lot more than denomination.

ahhh - nevermind.

It doesnt bother me one way or the other iff they want to get married let them I think people or just scared of what they don't know they just see that the bible says its wrong I look at it this way how many people say that and go and have premarital sex or do somthing else that the bible says is wrong

I loved that.

most matters that engage me on this question have been addressed, often quite eloquently---thanks folks----all i have to say is that marriage is a legal question--it might lean on "traditional" conceptions, but once those conceptions get translated into law, those "traditional conceptions" (which are almost always ahistorical, arbitrary assemblages of information routed through an irrelevant network of texts) no longer matter.

it seems that most objections to gay people getting married are predicated on pushing the legal environment back into an arbitrary notion of tradition, which of course the christian right thinks that it holds a monopoly on defining.

i am left wondering why conservatives would care who other people choose to love, and why it would concern them if those people choose to avail themselves of the various protections afforded to folk who marry.

I think it's funny that some are saying tradition has nothing to do with marriage and then post a link from a pastor's sermon. Hmm, last I checked, a pastor was a religious figure. This puts the argument square back into the realm of religion again. It seems to be he gets in his digs against more "conservative" religions. His argument is as much about endorsing his own religious views as anything else. Let me mention again that he is a religious figure and lists no concrete facts besides a kind of idealism to support his claims. The history of marriage as it has existed in other parts of the world has no relevance to the current state of marriage here in this country right now.

Well, I think you missed the point. I could be wrong, but I think the post was trying to point out that not all religious thought is in uniform opposition to gay marriage and that this pastors opinion is that religious tradition probably shouldn't have much to do with peoples opinion about it. He's trying to say that marriage is not a tradition set in stone, that the definition has changed over time, so why shouldn't it change again? In that way, the history of marriage IS relevant to the current state of marriage here in this country right now.

And you deride the pastor for not listing concrete facts, being idealistic and endorsing his own religious views, but isn't that what you're doing? There are no facts here, only idealism and opinions.

I am as pro-Gay marriage as they come, and most points I could make have already been made, so I'll instead post some random thoughts:

- Isn't it ironic that George W. Bush is pushing marriage as a cure all for the lower class, but goes out of his way to prevent it for a small minority.

- If any argument against gay marriage in this thread had the word GAY replaced with the word BLACK, everyone would probably be in an uproar and no one would support the statements.

- Simply put, the gay community will always be considered second-class citizens both socially and legally as long as they aren't afforded the same rights as the straight community.

- Gay rights are the last bastion of Civil Rights.

- The concept of "separation of church and state" is the biggest fallacy in politics, particularly in this administration.

I love how you blasted GWB in your support for gay marriage, and yet all the arguments supporting it use his "Operation Iraqi Freedom" tactics to defend it. Somehow, everyone opposed to the minor issue of gay marriage is labeled as intolerant and against the perceived progress of all civil rights everywhere. Keep your bullying, pro-American/anti-American style tactics out of here. It serves no purpose and still does nothing to give credibility to the argument for gay marriage. Back up your assertions with some solid evidence for why you back this issue. I, for one, have already given mine.

You must've confused your co-opting of the concept of marriage to fit your convenient misconceptions about the history of the word marriage with the perspective of someone who is actually familiar with the history of marriage as it has been constantly redefined throughout its history.

I wasn't denouncing tradition, i was just trying to tell you that you seem to have no idea of what marriage has been traditionally. The point of what i posted is essentially this: in the bible, historically, the definition or marriage has constantly changed to reflect the society that employs it. There are many different ways of defining marriage and all could be accurately described as traditional. You can't claim to argue for the conservation of the "traditional" method of marriage because you aren't arguing for the conservation of the traditional definition of marriage. You're arguing for the conservation of a definition of marriage that you're comfortable with.

His "digs against conservative religion" are accurate. Sorry you think that the truth amounts to insult. The fact is that many churches who denounce homosexuality are very selective in their interpretation of that part of the bible. They emphasize a condemnation of homosexuality whilst downplaying cloth blends when both are mentioned with the exact same amount of urgency. That's the other point of my post. God is a convenient shield with which to hide one's homophobia, unfortunately one can't do it without cognitive dissonance unless one is consistent in one's interpretation of certain parts.

Another point is that this is a sound endorsement of gay marriage by a religious authority. Gay marriage should be protected by the first amendment. Ironically, many of the same people who become shrill at the thought of legalized gay marriage also become shrill at the idea of the ten commandments being removed from a courthouse. Do you know how sadly unamerican it is for a holy man to argue for only the rights of his own religious perspective? How shorsighted it is?

I'm sure you just scream for facts from whomever it is that told that the bible denounces homosexuality. I can tell from our conversation that factual information is really high on your list of "Things that effect my perspective".:rolleyes:
I provided you with the dictionary definition you asked for, but since it didn't say what you wanted it to you ignored it.

Here's some facts from the artical that you may have missed:

I wish i had citations, but suffice to say, calling a pastor a liar is a mortal sin ;)

I realize that interpretations aren't facts, but since you seem to use them as such you should have no problem if he does.

While we're on the subject of facts, i have yet to see you provide anything except a misunderstanding of tradition and an unsupported assertion that straight parents raise better children than gay parents.

How's that? I thought we were talking tradition here. Tradition has roots in the past, you can't pretend it is irrelevant without any kind of justification.

Was this directed at me?

Yes, Derwood, you are chief but not exclusively the person that was aimed at since you asked. I don't normally quote and then counterpoint and nitpick my way through. I don't want my posts to descend into the realm of personally directed attacks. It's just not my style.

Anyways, marriage as it has existed with multiple wives or for money has no bearing on the current state of marriage. I guess gays now want a slew of constant sexual partners like people have in the past or is it that they just want to marry by class now? The point here is that traditions of marriage don't much matter as they existed outside this country, unless you want me to make comparisons on gay traditions through history. Stick to the current state of affairs.

I did actually make several more points than mentioning how gays make worse parents, which by the way is subjective. There is no way to measure quality of parenting, or quality of anything period, without being subjective. I don't much care for the lifestyle, but I can assure you this issue is separate. I don't normally do more than ignore them and go about my business. Most supporters seem to be coming up with excuses or laying down heavy slander. I am at least attempting to tread on solid ground here without labeling dissenters as intolerant, afraid, etc. Several people here also still seem to think making random comparisons to other unrelated civil rights issues is somehow relevant to the issue at hand. Comparisons alone do not an argument make. have yet to see a solid line leading from gays not being permitted to redefine marriage to a world of oppression, cruelty, and intolerance towards gays.

Lets restate that marriage is a religious affair as it exists in this country for the great majority of people, as the quote from the pastor proved. A sermon is a sermon. Progressive religion is an oxymoron. I don't find his master's degree in theology to be meaningful in the slightest. I've talked to many theologians and found them all to be along the same strain. My beliefs are supreme, your's are evil and backwards, etc. Also, people tend to get married in a church or by a religious figure. The very nature of conflicting religious views means you need hard evidence to back up your claims. Mentioning love is a bad path to follow here.

Let me state for the record that I am in no way religious, religiously affiliated, or spiritual in any way. I am a diehard atheist, so think before sliding me casually into any kind of religious group. I do not also call myself liberal, conservative, right-wing, or left-wing. I see issues as they exist independently without either labeling all people who oppose as part of one group or by allowing some larger, intangible political body to dictate my thoughts for me.

Marriage seems to be the key problem here. Gays are fighting to get accepted into a fundamentally broken institution. If you don't think it's broken, then you must like at least some of its customs. Laws of marriage aside, it's the traditions as they've existed in this country here that seem to lend it any appeal at all.

Not only are they fighting for perceived rather than tangible gain, but they are encouraging public officials to break federal law to do it. I don't see people rising up against what seem to be just about every right in the Constitution being broken by the Patriot Act. The country has bigger issues going on. The draft issue comes to mind... Anyways, it's not a good thing when states get involved against the federal government and publicly flout it. That has never gone over well in the past.

A truly modern and progressive thing to do would be to get rid of marriage altogether. I do think it should be labeled a civil union, not religiously affiliated, and not connected to perceived emotions like love. I don't see too many of the pro-gay marriage crowd lobbying for multiple wives and husbands, the right to marry a person under 18, or the right to marry an animal. I can't think of too many compelling arguments against those without going into the realm of personal standards. Heck, we might as well go for marriage to objects, too. The laws can be changed to fit a wider definition if necessary. That's enough for me but probably not everyone else.

Anyways, I'm summarizing here, so I hope my meaning is a bit more clear and rises above my rambling and apparently woefully limited perceptions. I can only hope to emulate the patterns of posters on this board for my enlightenment to begin. I request a summary to keep this on track if it's not dead already.

I'm completely in favor of allowing two men to get married in the eyes of the law.

Just as long as they're both of the same race.

:)

gondath -

Interestingly, most of the points you make had nothing to do with my single post on this topic, but I digress.

As someone who has many, many gay friends and coworkers, I think I can safely say that ultimately, civil unions would just fine with them. I think the fight for marriage is simply a fight to be recognized as equals in a society that still treats gays as second-class citizens.

I think it's very easy to argue against gay marriage when you are straight and already have the privelage.

I have been keeping up with this thread for quite some time, and decided that I might as well join the fun :D

Derwood, you are exactly right. It is far easier to deny someone something if you currently have the right to do something, and they currently don't.

For those of you arguing that gay marriage goes against "tradition" ... I'll agree with you. Gay marriage certainly does go against recent tradition. However, so did Women's Rights, Desegregation, Freeing the slaves.... well, you get the point.

However, as "tradition" seems to be the anti-gay marriage arguement of choice, at least from those that I have talked to (TFP or otherwise) - what example do you suppose we should use to call tradition? Man & Woman in a loving and respectful relationship? Maybe Man & Women, with the women's sole purpose to please the man? (50's textbook)

The reason I don't see any real value to the "tradition" arguement, as I have hopefully illustrated above, is the fact that there is no way to define which tradition to use as a model, and even if their was, you can't pick a single tradition and require a society as a whole (especially one as multi-cultural as America) and require everyone to not only accept, but practice it.

For those that protest saying that it is against God, the same general rule applies. It may be against your God(s), but that is the reason there is a seperation of Church and State. We are allowed to practice any religion we want to here in this Great Country - and even if some religions disallow gay marriages, as shown above, some do, although it doesn't really matter, as the religious aspect is up to the Gay couple in question.

For me, the hardest part to accept with the defence of the Bible is shown above. If you are willing to follow the Bible to a T when it comes to denying people rights, you better be up there hacking up animals to sacrifice & wearing only one type of cloth at the same time - if not, your opinion means little to me since you are willing to deny others peoples rights based on your religion but you don't hold it close enough to your heart to practice it to the letter.

Finally, people have stated that it is better for a child to be brought up in a "traditional" nuclear family. I have not seen a single study that has stated that, and if there is, I apologize. However, I do remember seeing several studies that stated that children brought up by same sex parents do just as well in all aspects of their life than a child as a result in a traditional marriage. With the divorce rate as high as it is, not to mention having children out of wedlock, wouldn't you think that it is better to have two parents, even if they are the same sex, than just one? Once again, this brings up the "traditional" aspect of all this, and puts us back in square one.

I see absolutely no issues with gay marriage, and have seen nor heard any conclusive proof showing that it is has/will damaged society. It is simply the next civil rights battle - and the war is near over.

It genuinely disturbs me when people compare the debate over "gay marriage" to the freeing of slaves. It's the equivelant of comparing Bush or Clinton to Hitler, and just as ridiculous of an argument.

It is not even a civil rights issue, though liberals would love it to be -- it's an issue of the government pushing its nose where it does not belong. It is as unconstitutional for government to regulate marriage as it is for it to regulate what sexual acts two (or three, or twelve) consenting adults enjoy together.