10 Reasons to Keep Gay Marriage Illegal...

[7starmantis]

True but marriage benefits are more general. In healthcare a married partner has more rights to intervene on behalf of their partner. Marriage also provides the rightof divorce and the protections inherant in that right. Society as a whole benefits from long term partnerships and the economic stability they provide. I doubt that the chromosomal makeup of the partnership is a significant factor in the economic benefits as a whole.

I dont know of any (or I'm just overlooking them, feel free to correct me) rights and protections of divorce that are awarded to married people that are not to single people. If you mean things like restraining orders and such, they are available to a "dating couple" or "live-in" couple, or a "common law married couple" as well. I think you have a point, but the issue at hand with most who do not support this is not in line with chromosomal makeup as an argument. There is really no evidence to support chromosomal changes between gay and straight people. Most who disagree with gay marriage believe the gay lifestyle is a choice, not a chromosomal makeup.

As to marriage not taking place in the bedroom, that's true but unfortunately that is likely where most of the objections to gay marriage derive.

How so?

7sm

 

[arnisador]

Bisexuality doesn't mean wanting to marry two people.

Xequat, glad to hear that your mind is open to debate! So few people truly listen to the other side in anargument, it so often seems.

 

[hardheadjarhead]

This is written in a humourous fashion, but its hard to argue with.

Damn. This was excellent. The sarcasm was perfect and made a great defense for Gay marriage.


The Massachussetts legislature has essentially made Gay marriage legal. Look for other states to follow. Do NOT look for a Federal Marriage Amendment banning Gay marriage. Congress won't be able to push that through, and they really haven't tried.

I suspect in fifteen years or so we'll have another three or four states with Gay marriage. Maybe more. Maybe less...but I think its on the way.

The debate has brought the issue of homosexuality to center stage. In spite of the backlash people observed during the last election, many people are swinging towards support of Gay rights. George Bush himself said he was in favor of civil unions...which is a nice compromise in many states, provided it gives the couple in question full rights.

Gays are becoming an open part of American culture. They're stereotyped less and less and are becoming a familiar--and less threatening--part of the American scene.

When we do get reactionary backlash towards them, it is often dispensed with such hatefulness and blatant ignorance that we find it difficult to give such criticism any credence, and it tends to make us lean the other way. The recent suggestion that Katrina was called down by God because of his anger towards homosexual celebrations in the New Orleans French Quarter stands out as an example. The French Quarter wasn't even flooded, and the Gays who would have attended the celebration were grounded at their airports across the country. Poor timing and aim on God's part, eh?

I have a hunch...and its a hunch...that the new Supreme Court that George Bush is fashioning will end up supporting Gay rights even more than last year's court did. If the Rhenquist court ended sodomy laws in this country, the Roberts court will most certainly validate Gay rights at some other level.


Regards,


Steve

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I have two minds of this debate. First, I tend to view things from a libertarian standpoint. As such, what two people do in regards to who they decide to marry or have sex with is up to them.


One argument that has been brought up though is that of the inequality of gays not being able to marry. Technically speaking, that is not true. A gay man can marry any woman (and vice versa) that they choose. They just can't marry someone of the same sex. That is true for heterosexual men and women as well.

By allowing gay marriage on whatever basis, you do have to then consider polygamous marriages. Why not. The same arguments for gay marriage apply for polygamous marriages. And it's still between consenting adualts.

I would venture to guess though, that most people who subscribe to the gay marriage debate as a matter of equal rights and a libertarian view point, would not agree with such issues as the legalization of drugs.

Also, I want to know how a matter of who you have sex with becomes a matter of a minority status. It's an activity. Am I a minority because I'm a SCUBA diver, or because I do Kenpo. Do I deserve special treatment due to that fact?

 

[Sapper6]

would this not be an example of elected officials using their power of office for personal gain? not that i'm for or against gay marriage, that doesn't matter. but a law allowing gays to marry would definately possess certain tax advantages, hence, allowing a financial benefit. so for a lawmaker to push a bill that would aid him or her in benefiting financially, wouldn't this be politically immoral...? watcha think?

Schwarzenegger Vetoes Calif. Gay Nups Bill

Leno, who is one of six openly gay state lawmakers, said Schwarzenegger had missed a historic opportunity to stand up for civil rights.

don't take this as an attack against the left, opposing gay marriage, or whatever. i'm wondering about the creating of laws that benefit the legislator financially. be it whatever. is it unethical?

i'm not even saying it is. seeing that the lawmaker is a red-blooded American human being just like us, it would be only natural for them to push laws that benefit themselves and the entire American public. dunno, when it comes to laws concerning taxation, benefits, etc., makes it kinda iffy.

 

[Kane]

This thread is a bit weird, no offense. Some of those reasons were funny though.

I guess I'm in the minority on why same-sex marriage should illegal. To be honest I'm all for homosexuality, I could care less if I see two guys making out on the street. Homosexuality like bondage is completely fine; sex is the best thing about living if you know what I mean .

But marriage is between a man and a woman. Always has been, even the Greeks who openly accepted homosexuals would never have thought of marriage, because its not marriage. Its a oxymoron! Without man and woman it’s a different thing! If you like to call homosexuality a union, go right ahead. All power to you! You want the same rights as homosexual unions? Go right ahead, more power to you! But we need to get one thing straight; marriage is between a man and a woman.

So if you want a union, equal but different, I'm all for that! In fact I think it would be great, diversity is a good thing. A heterosexual union is called marriage, what should a homosexual union be called?

This will definitely in my opinion keep both sides happy.

 

[Flatlander]

I'm stating that if we want to have some element of morality in our law, we can not use the lowest common factor, which would be child molestors and rapist. I'm asking where do we draw that line
<snip>
Which morality? We are a democratic republic, let the legal process work its magic. If people have problems, let their voices be heard. I have a feeling the time will come when it will become legalized. If so, then let it. People will remain who will protest against it after the fact. Let them engage in the same democratic process.

I disagree. It is the role of the courts to protect the individual from the will of the majority. Individual freedoms, balanced by your Constitutional rights, ought supercede the moral majority's flavour of the day.

So where do you draw the line? When someone's rights are being infringed upon. I do not see that anywhere when two consenting adults commit to eachother. Your allusions to morality and law are flawed. Law is meant to protects people's rights, not support their moral biases.

 

[Flatlander]

But we need to get one thing straight; marriage is between a man and a woman.

Why, "because it always has been?" Should we have used that as an argument as to why Jackie Robinson shouldn't play pro ball? Oh, I bet they did that. Hmmm...

Let's try something different. Imagine if Copernicus had thought, "No! I must be crazy to think that the sun is at the center of the solar system. The Earth is at the center - because it always has been that way."

My point, obviously, is that history doesn't validate a position's legitimacy. It only reflects what we have thought, not what we should think. Progress is rooted in change.

 

[shesulsa]

What we must find ourselves compelled to do is define what marriage really is. So we must consider many things. It is ultimately the union of two people who have come together to live, share, love, grow, commit, care for, protect, guard, comfort each other and any other beings they choose to bring into the relationship should they choose to do so.

Gay people have been "married" for many years - committed to each other in private ceremonies not recognized by law. They have been raising children, they have been working, voting, fighting. They have cleaned your teeth, analyzed your urine sample, prepared your food, counted your money, x-rayed your naked butt, cared for your children, invested your portfolio, purchased goods and services from the company you work for, made executive decisions for the company you work for, own the company you work for, built the car you drive, changed your tire, assembled your keyboard, prayed with your minister and for you, given mouth-to-mouth resuscitation, volunteered their time to help less fortunate, taught you math in university, taught your children geometry in middle school, invented important medicinal remedies and a hundred thousand different things ALREADY!!!

When you alienate a portion of the population because you don't agree with their bedroom antics (though they might not be illegal nor hurt anyone else), you design your own economy for failure.

I know of a couple who have been together for almost 30 years. Had they been married, they would not have lost all their investments, their home and their life savings when they each fell ill and were unable to work. They are financially ruined and cannot consume as they were previously able to. Their American Dream is over - gone - bye bye - woo hoo - c ya.

Why do we need to do this to our own population just because they swing a different way?

 

[Flatlander]

Why do we need to do this to our own population just because they swing a different way?

Fear.

 

[arnisador]

I have a hunch...and its a hunch...that the new Supreme Court that George Bush is fashioning will end up supporting Gay rights even more than last year's court did. If the Rhenquist court ended sodomy laws in this country, the Roberts court will most certainly validate Gay rights at some other level.

Full agreement with your post, and the above is my hunch too.

 

[arnisador]

By allowing gay marriage on whatever basis, you do have to then consider polygamous marriages. Why not. The same arguments for gay marriage apply for polygamous marriages.

The arguments for and against alcohol apply to marijuana, but one is legal and the other isn't. I don't see your point. Polygamy is different--that's why we have a different word for it.

[/QUOTE]Also, I want to know how a matter of who you have sex with becomes a matter of a minority status.[/QUOTE]
It doesn't. As you say, it's an activity; many otherwise heterosexual men do it in prison, for example.

But sexual orientation is largely inborn, or at least set at a very young age, and that's the minority status point.

 

[arnisador]

I think shesulsa makes an excellent point that we're just talking about codifying what has long been the practice--in effect, common-law gay marriages.

As to the matter of marriage being between opposite sexes by definition--I have no problem with those who feel this way, though I disagree. Definitions are somewhat arbitrary, after all. I also note that the Constitution clearly provides for only men to be elected to public office...

 

[Kane]

Why, "because it always has been?" Should we have used that as an argument as to why Jackie Robinson shouldn't play pro ball? Oh, I bet they did that. Hmmm...

Let's try something different. Imagine if Copernicus had thought, "No! I must be crazy to think that the sun is at the center of the solar system. The Earth is at the center - because it always has been that way."

My point, obviously, is that history doesn't validate a position's legitimacy. It only reflects what we have thought, not what we should think. Progress is rooted in change.

Typical thing a lib likes to do, bring up something that totally doesn't relate to anything we are talking about to make his argument look good. Why don't you bring more Blacks being segregated to justify your point? Although it has nothing to do with anything it will make your argument look more pure and fancy.

What I'm trying to say is there are obvious flaws in Copernicus comparison, and the flaws are so obvious you are on anyone else can see them. In fact it is even more obvious you picked it even though it doesn't relate to anything we are talking about. Same with your logic with Jackie Robinson argument. Basicly what you are trying to do is use the race argument to say that gays do not have equal rights and any other person in order to justify gay "marriage".

Copernicus lived in a time where there was no science and anything other than catholic theology was considered evil (even though Copernicus was a die-hard Christian himself, who believed Yahweh glorifies himself on all the planets). We live in the information age now, there is obvious logic in marriage being between a man and a woman. The Earth isn't the center of the universe, and marriage is between a man and a woman.

By the way what to you is progress Flatlander? I really hate it when libs bring up that they are that there way is the only progressive way. Progress to a lib is defined as progress that belongs in liberal philosophy. It doesn't matter whether it makes sense to most of the population or not, it must be liberal.

 

[Shaolinwind]

I dont get tax breaks in my bedroom.

7sm

I have been known to, it depends on the auditor.

 

[Loki]

Why people who demand antibiotics rather than faith healing still refuse to accept modern biology in other contexts, I don't know.

True, but sometimes even that's harmful, such as cases where bacteria strains evolve anti-antibiotic defenses. This usually happens when people pressure their doctors to give them or their children antibiotics against virus-based diseases for no good reason.

Interesting list. I found it less humorous than I found it enlightening.

 

[Makalakumu]

There is a lot of irony in this situation. The same people who attack gay marriage as immoral are offended when someone says that legislating their morality is immoral. The bottom line is that sometimes peoples morals are outdated and wrong. We don't torture people to death, we don't keep slaves, and we don't subjugate our women anymore...and all of these were things that used to happen in the past. American was founded upon the enlightenment principles of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness for all humanity...Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, the entire COC and those other organizations would deny this because of their morality. And history has shown us that whenever, some seeks to deny those fundamental principles from a segment of humanity, that they were wrong. Thus, the morality that dictates the denial of marriage rights to homosexuals is wrong.

Kane - progress = expanding what it means to be american to every american.

 

[heretic888]

There is a lot of irony in this situation. The same people who attack gay marriage as immoral are offended when someone says that legislating their morality is immoral. The bottom line is that sometimes peoples morals are outdated and wrong. We don't torture people to death, we don't keep slaves, and we don't subjugate our women anymore...and all of these were things that used to happen in the past. American was founded upon the enlightenment principles of Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness for all humanity...Pat Robertson, Jerry Fallwell, the entire COC and those other organizations would deny this because of their morality. And history has shown us that whenever, some seeks to deny those fundamental principles from a segment of humanity, that they were wrong. Thus, the morality that dictates the denial of marriage rights to homosexuals is wrong.

Kane - progress = expanding what it means to be american to every american.

To quote the first President of the United States of America:

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society."

- George Washington, in a letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792

 

[mrhnau]

To quote the first President of the United States of America:

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the Christians so that their religious fights would not endanger the peace of Society."

- George Washington, in a letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792

Was wondering when you would chime in here

What was considered liberal thought of the time would hardly be considered congruent with liberal thought of the current time. There are alot of religious controversies still. However, I doubt internal christian divisions (and you tend to pine against the christian church) are endangering the peace of society. Of course there are the rare extremist, but you find them in every faith and group. Based on the content of this thread, are you trying to imply that not allowing gay marriages will endanger the peace of society?

MrH

 

[Kenpodoc]

I dont know of any (or I'm just overlooking them, feel free to correct me) rights and protections of divorce that are awarded to married people that are not to single people. If you mean things like restraining orders and such, they are available to a "dating couple" or "live-in" couple, or a "common law married couple" as well. I think you have a point, but the issue at hand with most who do not support this is not in line with chromosomal makeup as an argument. There is really no evidence to support chromosomal changes between gay and straight people. Most who disagree with gay marriage believe the gay lifestyle is a choice, not a chromosomal makeup.

How so?

7sm

An example of a protection provided by divorce is the right to a share of a pension plan and division of assets on separation. In most states, live in partners have fewer rights on separation than married partners.

I guess I wasn't clear about what I meant by chromosomal make up (sorry.) I meant one member of a couple being XX and the other XY. The genetics of homosexuality are far more complex, probably multifactorial and the subject of a different discussion.

How so?

Many people quote religious ideology but their actually discomfort is with real or imagined events happening behind closed doors.

Jeff