Gay marriage - non-religious objections?

Great Debates
21

Oh yes Who_me, such a good idea…let’s have sex with boys too like the Greeks did. :rolleyes:

Like any civilization they had some great ideas, but they as a civilization are not the model to follow.

They were over ran by barbarians in 1000BC, which are the Spartans you’re talking about, they constantly warred amongst themselves, except for when invaded by others.

The height of their power, was created, and lost, all within the life-span of one man, who died at 33? 36? Around there.

Rome didn’t even have to “Conquer” them…it just got to the point where the Romans said “You’re under our jurisdiction now”.

So in conclusion I fail to see how Sparta proves anything…if you want to be like sparta then go join the Army for 53 years of your life starting at the age of 7.

22

Ummmm… I see a lot of words, but no evidence…

23

Usually I don’t participate in discussions with your type (and I’ve seen full well in this and other thread what type you are) on the principle of “don’t wrestle with hogs, you get dirty and they like it”, but I’ll give you one last benefit of the doubt in the hope that you are capable of receiving instruction.

Your assertion that legalized gay marriage will cause our society to somehow “fall”, is nothing more than an assertion, unproved and unsupported. Pointing out that male Romans had sex with other male Romans before Rome was overrun by enemies is pointless. It has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of hand. If you can find some historic well-functioning society that legalized gay marriage and then somehow was destroyed in a manner directly derived from the legalization of gay marriage, and the situation in that society is analogous to the situation in our society, then you have something that’s at least worth a closer look. Until then, you have nothing.

Here’s how a debate works: Someone makes an assertion and (and this is important) backs it up. Someone else, disagreeing, either attacks the assertion or makes a contrary assertion, and (and this is important) backs it up. Both people listen to the other. Both people think about what the other has said. The only valid arguments are those that are relevant and logical. If you try to act in this manner, you will be an appreciated member of these boards, even if many of us disagree with what you’re saying. If you don’t, you’ll be seen as nothing more than an annoyance, and your message will certainly reach no-one. It’s therefore in everybody’s interest that you attempt to behave in a logical manner.

Provided this is serious, and I’m doubting, this is a very good example of why you should listen and think. I’m sure you’re able of seeing the lack of consent in the marriage described, even though the dog is unable (not unwilling) to divorce the partner.

24

You’re right, we should have a more evidence backed discussion here. Seeing as we got off on the WRONG foot, let us begin anew.

But also seeing that I’m more biased in this than I am “reasonable” as you would put it.

How about rather than simply claiming that my arguments based on past civilizations (Rome never recognized marriage between the same sex), are unfounded, you present your “facts” that Homosexual Marriage is infact a good thing to allow.

Not refutes of whatever I’ve claimed, erase those, clean slate.

Just give a good reason to allow homosexual marriages.

25

Because it would give gay couples the same privileges as opposite sex couples can enjoy while married.

26

It gives homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals in this regard, and there’s no reason that homosexuals shouldn’t have the same rights as heterosexuals in this regard.

27

  1. Who should legalize Gay Marriage? I’m for State’s making their own legislation on this, not the Nat’l Government.

  2. It was Rousseau who argued that Society itself was inequal in nature, so why should we bother to try and be “equal” in every thing?

It makes sense to me not to deny one on the ability to get jobs or to marry based on color.

But the ban on gay marriages…is equal as well.

I (even though I’m heterosexual), would equally not be able to marry another man.

This is a contrast to the “inequality” based on color, which prevented a person from being able to get the same jobs or wages based on color.

But a gay man has in this society equal opportunities everywhere, even to marry women and thus get the benefits they so desire.

It is preference that they want to marry men, or gay women marry women.

And so, I don’t really see how it falls into the category of “injust inequality”.

After all, should we demand that women and old men with fake hips play on the NFL for the sake of Equality?

Should we demand that every basketball team must have a miget on their team, for the sake of equality?

While those are examples of inequality based on abilities.

I don’t see how illegalizing gay marriages is an inequality at all.

Again I restate, there is nothing a gay person can’t do, that a heterosexual person can’t do.

Gay people just want to do something else that heterosexuals would never want to do.

Any gay person has the ability to marry a person of the opposite sex, receive the same wages, and get any job or education they please.

28

I agree. The Federal government has no business involving themselves in marriage.

That means we can enact a ban on people marrying persons of a different race. Even though we would be outlawing black persons marrying whites, the opposite would be true that we’re outlawing whites to marry blacks. Equality… right?

If they have the talent and ability…

Again, if they have the ability. We should not allow a person of small stature to be denied a spot in the NBA just because of his size.

Except marry the person they love…

29

First: many of the posters here, including me, are not American, so the issue of whether this is a subject for national legislation or state legislation is not an interesting argument in itself.

Your other arguments are merely semantics, that can be countered with other semantics. For example, a straight man can legally marry someone he loves and wants to have sex with. A gay man cannot, so right there is something gays can’t do that straights can.

It could also be seen as gender discrimination. If I were an American male, I’d be able to marry Janet Jackson. But an American woman wouldn’t be, simply because she is of another gender. That’s discrimination based on gender.

As for the NFL/basketball stuff, I can’t really see the connection.

30

"That means we can enact a ban on people marrying persons of a different race. Even though we would be outlawing black persons marrying whites, the opposite would be true that we’re outlawing whites to marry blacks. Equality… right?
" – Who_me

Correct, and there was probably a time in America pre-Civil War when this (by northern judges too), would have been upheld if proposed by the people as widely as “Anti-Gay Marriages” is proposed.

The concept of Minority Rights versus Majority Rule were vastly different then than they are today. Today, you can pretty much get away with most things if you can convince the courts it is your beliefs.

Both of you bring up the interesting prospect of “Love”.

While I agree, love is an important thing, I don’t think it should hold up in the Court of Law.

Especially considering most of the World does not marry out of Love, and the Western concept of Love is pretty unique compared to the entire rest of the world’s views on it.

That in itself is a good debate topic, how love differes from culture to culture and how does it define society?

But, when there are nations like India, where Marriages are pre-arranged when you are 13, how can you actually justify that love is a good reason to allow Gay Marriages?

America doesn’t have to be “different” (or in this case similar, since it seems to be a fad in Europe to get this thing legalized).

If America chooses, or in my opinion, the states so choose to illegalize it, so be it. And if they choose to legalize it, so be that. Just accept what the majority in your state wants on this issue.

After all, it’s not an inalienable right. If it was popular consent to ban all marriages hetero or homo, then let the State do that…lol.

31

No one said that love should stand up in court. Just equality…

32

I wanted to address this also… but it seems… well… What does one have to do with the other, and who are you to say that either is wrong?

33

Look, The_Broken_Column, read my little debate primer again.

You said: Straights can do nothing that gays can’t. A gay man can marry a woman, the same as a straight man.
We said: Gays cannot marry people they love, straights can. There’s something straights can do that gays cannot.
You say: Love shouldn’t be held up in court.

But nobody’s said that. You’re not responding to our arguments. You’re not listening. You said straights could do nothing that gays can’t, we showed you an example countering that assertion.

But let’s leave all this and change the question a bit. I think it stands to reason that everything should be allowed unless there’s a reason to forbid it. Is there a reason to forbid gay marriage? If so, show me.

34

Except marry the person he (or she) loves.

And that’s what it comes down to. You’re arguing that gay men and straight men have the equal right to marry a woman, should they want to, and so it is fair to prohibit anyone from marrying men.

This is like arguing that establishing a state Christian church is not discriminatory, because both Christians and Jews would have the equal right to worship the Christian God, should they want to.

35

I did respond to your entire argument.

Love, is not an excuse period.

Most of the world doesn’t recognize Love. The idea as the West knows it is completely foriegn to people such as Indians or many African tribes//nations.

36

KellyM your last sentence is completely baseless.

The first item addressed in the US Constitution is the barring of the Establishment of Religion.

It never mentions anywhere that people shall not be descriminated against based on their sexuality.

37

And your argument is…?

We can’t allow marriage because the only reason to allow them is love and most of the world doesn’t recognize love, but we also can’t follow other parts of the world that allow same sex marriage because they are not the United States…
Maybe you’d better parse your own argument, because I’m beginning to get confused.

38

No, you didn’t respond to it at all.

And nobody’s said that it is. No-one said “love is an excuse”. No-one said “the courts should recognise love”. You’re responding to a figment of your imagination.

Both irrelevant and untrue.

Also irrelevant. The discussion is not “does the US constitution prohibit discrimination based on sexual preference?”. It is “should gay marriage be legal?”.

I’m going to give this one more shot. One more chance for you to prove that you are serious and able to carry on a civilized debate. So follow me now.

Your argument: Forbidding gay marriage is not inequality, since gays and straights have the same rights.
Our argument: No, they don’t. Gays cannot marry someone they love, they cannot marry someone they want to have sex with, they cannot even marry someone they want to marry. Straights can do all these things.
Your response must be either to retract your argument, change it, or show that it is valid, which means countering our argument. You only have these three options. No other. That’s what “debate” means. Show me that you comprehend it.

39

One more option: Change your username to The_Broken_Record

40

No, actually, the first item addressed in the Constitution is the vesting of legislative powers with Congress. And my statement is not “baseless”; it’s pointing out, by analogy, the flaw in your argument. And the Constitution bars States from discriminating against anyone on the basis of any irrelevant condition in the Fourteenth Amendment. Perhaps you should go back and study your Constitutional law a bit more carefully.