It’s traditional to insert padding between mutually exclusive assertions, to maintain some pretense of respect for the reader’s intelligence.
Obviously, persons of criminal character are incapable of providing acceptable “parental support and guidance for children”; ergo, any concept of marriage that rests upon the latter must necessarily exclude the former.
Hasn’t anybody heard of the Church of Elvis? 
So a gay having a sham marriage with a straight is better than a real marriage with the person they love.?
Pedophiles can marry people with children, or marry people to have children, that they can then molest. It’s called “growing your own.” One of the easiest ways to get your victims.
The best book I’ve ever red againt gay marriage is Outrage. The uathor is totally against the idea, yet every argument he gives is so invalide it made my head hurt.
I’ve suspected that many SSM opponents don’t believe a man can have a “real marriage with the person they love” with another man (or a woman with another woman), because it’s not possible for two men or two women to love each other the way a man and a woman can. Gay men, they believe, don’t love other men, they just lust after them. Thus, gay marriage must be based on lust rather than love, and allowing it threatens the “sanctity” of marriage.
And I’ve further suspected that some SSM opponents don’t believe there are any truly gay people. They think that homosexuality is a sexual practice people choose to engage in, or perhaps a sinful urge that they ought to resist (like an urge to have an affair with a married coworker, for example), not a matter of one’s identity.
I think that if ignorance could be fought in these matters, some (but certainly not all) of the opposition to SSM would go away.
Those are two points the author of the book makes: gay people are too promiscuous to get married, and gay people can become straight.
Real reason against gay marriage:
Gay sex is gross and the thought of it makes me uncomfortable. The thought of putting that in there just totally squicks me out. Furthermore it made those people who wrote my holy book equally uncomfortable. So under no circumstances should the government be promoting this act that I and a lot of my fellow believers find so gross and uncomfortable to think about.
Unfortunately, we as a society have reached a point that just because a large number of us find something objectionable is not a good enough reason to outlaw it. Nor can I prove that it is objectively wrong by appealing to the authority of my holy book writers, due to the whole separation of church and state thing.
So I have to try to wrack my brains for some rational reason that codifies the discomfort. Well, a good place to start is with what the fundimental differences are between a Hetero-sexual marriage which I like and a Homo-sexual marriage which makes my think of putting that in there and so squicks me out. That most obvious difference is that one can produce children and one can’t. So I will rationalize my underlying icky feelings by saying that what is really important about marriage is the children that it produces. Even though this isn’t a rational argument (nobody ever opposed sterile couples marrying), it’s the best I can come up with to codify my very real personal objections to these acts on aesthetic grounds. I will then defend this position to the death because, although it may not be logically consistant, I know it must be right because I know homosexuality is wrong with the core of my being. If it wasn’t why would it gross me and everyone else I know out so much.
Of course this was also true several decades ago when black on white sex was viewed as gross, and the same arguments about how mixed race children would be teased or confused were trotted out.
Disclaimer: In case it isn’t obvious, I am actually favor of gay rights and marriage in particular in spite of the fact that I really do find gay sex to be icky.
The book I mentioned above, which was published in 2004, uses pretty up-to-date, if singular, studies to make the author’s point of how horrible gay people are However, to prove that an overwhelming number of child molesters are gay or bisexual, he uses two studies from the 1980’s–one of prisoners!
How can you seperate the purpose of marriage from the definition of marriage? The definition of marriage exists to serve the purposes of marriage. If you watched the Royal Wedding you heard the preacher say that the purpose of marriage was first to raise children. Changing the definition of marriage would make it less likely to meet that purpose. Marriages would become fewer and more children would be born out of wedlock. Since illegitamate children are generally worse off than ones raised in intact families. Weakening marriage will hurt children. Who will it help? It might help gay couples who adopt children. Since those people are relatively rare, prudence dictate that we should set public policy to benefit the most people. However even those gay couples with children would not be hurt by keeping traditional marriage since the could enter any legal contract with one another they wanted. The difference is that the government does not have to put its stamp of approval on contractual arrangements like it would to change the marriage laws. This stamp of approval is what advocates of gay marriage want, not the actual rights and benefits of marriage. This is why arguements in favor of gay marriage tend to be emotional with frequent accusations of hatred and bigotry, instead of rational arguements about practical implications which is what would happen if the debate was about actual legal issues.
Some preacher in Britain doens’t get to define the purpsoe of marriage. And the purpose of marriage is whatever the people getting married want it to be. It certainly isn’t inherently about having children, because as has been pointed out again and again people who can’t have children are allowed to be married.
Allowing more people to marry is the last thing that will weaken marriage. Using it as a weapon to indulge bigotry though; that certainly smears it by association.
Nonsense; without that “stamp”, they can’t get the “actual rights and benefits of marriage”. Nor would it be morally right for them to let the bigots have any victory; the bigots should not be compromised with in any way. All compromising with them does is let them do more harm.
No; the anti-SSM side is accused of hatred and bigotry because bigotry and profiting from that bigotry are the only motivations for their opposition.
But marriage isn’t actually defined as “an institution to raise children.” If that’s the purpose of marriage, then it seems to me that we need to change the definition, because the current definition is allowing all sorts of (straight) people with no interest or ability to have children to get married.
So, we change the definition of marriage to make it all about the kids. That’s a good thing, right? Fewer children being born out of wedlock, and all that, right? Now, explain why gay people with kids necessarily need to be excluded from this definition of marriage.
You’ve just defeated your own argument. If gay couples with children aren’t hurt by not being able to marry, then the children of straight couples are likewise unharmed by not having married parents.
That’s not actually true, but let’s set that aside for the moment.
What’s wrong with giving a government stamp of approval to gay relationships? You’ve stated that children of gay couples will be perfectly okay, because gay couples have recourse to private legal contracts with each other - essentially, civil unions. If having gay couples in civil unions that mimic the appearance of marriage is not destructive to heterosexual marriage, why would applying a government stamp of approval to those same homosexual relationships suddenly impinge on heterosexual marriage? Please keep in mind that I’m not challenging the idea that marriage should be about children when you answer.
I’ve been arguing gay marriage on this board for ten years now, and I’ve yet to encounter a rational argument against legalizing gay marriage. It’s the utter lack of rationality in the oppositional stance that leads so many gay marriage advocates to assume hatred as the source of the opposition. Whether that apprehension is true, I think, I’ll leave to a different thread.
[QUOTE=Miller]
[QUOTE=puddleglum]
The difference is that the government does not have to put its stamp of approval on contractual arrangements like it would to change the marriage laws. This stamp of approval is what advocates of gay marriage want, not the actual rights and benefits of marriage.
[/QUOTE]
That’s not actually true, but let’s set that aside for the moment.
[/QUOTE]
Miller, I don’t have time to go through this debate a-g-a-i-n, but puddleglum is spot on. When I outlined a way to ensure that heteros who are married and gays in civil unions would both benefit from the exacts same set—one set—of laws, that was still s=not enough. Gays want the stamp of approval. The rights are secondary. according to those threads, anyway.
[QUOTE=Miller]
I’ve been arguing gay marriage on this board for ten years now, and I’ve yet to encounter a rational argument against legalizing gay marriage. It’s the utter lack of rationality in the oppositional stance that leads so many gay marriage advocates to assume hatred as the source of the opposition. Whether that apprehension is true, I think, I’ll leave to a different thread.
[/QUOTE]
Here I’d say you’re misusing the word “rational”. You’re using it to mean convincing, or what you think might be legitimate. I’ve supplied arguments, poor and as unconvincing as you and other SSM advocates might find them, that are, indeed, rational. That is one of the frustrating things about the debate. And unfair. Intentionally or not.
::shrug::
Because there is no such way.
Well, I disagree, as you’re well aware. You know I’ve got nothing personal against you, but I don’t find your arguments remotely rational - and I’m well aware of the difference between “rational” and “convincing.” Your insistence that you can have separate institutions for gay couples and straight couples, and still call it the same law, is one of the more irrational positions I’ve ever seen anyone take on these boards, who wasn’t an out-and-out nutter. I mean, you’re literally arguing that 2 = 1, there, and I can’t think of anything much more irrational than that.
Although, in fairness, I should have said that I haven’t heard a rational secular argument against gay marriage. The idea that gay marriage should be illegal because God hates gays is actually a rational argument, although it’s predicated on an irrational assumption.
The thing is, social approval is one of the rights conferred by marriage. IMO it makes the most sense not to give that to anybody, but if you are going to give it to anybody, it’s unjust to deny it to people based on the shape of their genitalia, or the genitalia of their partner.
Denying that approval to everyone is a rational position.
Providing that approval to everyone is a rational position.
Providing that approval based on some relevant characteristic (say, whether the happy couple has no record of domestic violence) is a rational position.
Providing that approval contingent on some irrelevant characteristic is irrational.
Why? How would making marriage more inclusive reduce its role in support of rearing children? And, unlike most of us, the major job of a royal couple is to have heirs. I suspect they won’t be doing too much child rearing on their own.
Why would allowing gays to marriage further hurt the already plummeting marriage rate? Perhaps it would actually increase it, not just for gays but for people uncomfortable with taking advantage of a benefit some of their friends are excluded from. Would you get divorced if there was gay marriage? I wouldn’t.
Cite that gay couples raising children is rare? If intact families are better at raising kids, and if marriage tends to keep families intact, wouldn’t it be advantageous to help keep gay families intact? Or would you rather take their children away? I don’t know about you, but the passage of Prop 8 in California in no way benefited either me or my marriage - which was not at all hurt during the short time it was legal. Perhaps a religious bigot would feel her marriage devalued, but that is her problem, isn’t it? Plenty of people felt their schools devalued when black people moved in - tough.
And of course laws giving special rights to married people prevent contracts between two gay people from being equivalent to a marriage.
Please show me where mainstream anti-SSM people have proposed civil unions that would provide equivalent rights to marriage without being marriage. Civil union states are usually liberal, and it is not the same because of federal restrictions. There are actually good reasons for recognizing it as marriage, but I doubt many gay people would spend a lot of energy opposing a Republican proposal for civil unions. If marriage were really the issue, this would be an excellent strategy for them, since it would reduce the arguments for SSM significantly. Since it is not happening, we must conclude that the reason for opposition is not the “sanctity of marriage” (whatever that means) but homophobia, pure and simple. This doesn’t apply to those who support truly equal civil unions, of course.
Please point me to some evidence for strong Republican support for truly equal civil unions. Thanks.
You two should have volunteered to testify at the California Prop 8 trial, where, despite ample resources and time, the pro-Prop. 8 forces were unable to come up with any rational arguments. Arguments based on incorrect data (like gays are worse parents) don’t count as rational in my book.
Puddleglum, a quick question for you:
I had a vasectomy years ago. My wife is very likely unable to have children due to her medical history. We have no intention of ever having kids of our own, and in fact it’s fairly unlikely we’d be able to do so without an incredible amount of medical assistance.
Oh, and we’re both atheists.
Would you say that we should legally have been allowed to get married?
Well, as I said, Canada’s had gay marriage for over six years, now. What practical effects should be be seeing through a rational unemotional lens? What should we expect to see when comparing marriage stats in Canada vs. the U.S.?
I can answer this one: six years isn’t long enough to detect the effects of gay marriage.
The advantage of this argument is that it can be extended indefinitely. When you’ve had it ten years, it won’t be long enough. Fifteen? Still not long enough. The formula for determining the number of years necessary to detect the deleterious effects of gay marriage is apparently x + 1, where x is the number of years it has been since gay marriage was instituted.
Up to a point. When x becomes too large to be believable, the argument undergoes a fascinating metamorphosis and bursts out of its cocoon as a beautiful “Their culture is fundamentally different from that of the US - it may work there but it could never work here.”
That’s not my position. It’s that two different groups can both tap into the same set—1 set—of benefits. For instance, two groups, women and men, both enjoy the same privileges when it comes to one set of voting laws. Two groups, one set of laws. Works just fine.
We can do the same thing with those joined through traditional marriage (heteros) and civil unions (gays). Two groups, one set of benefits and privileges.