No, not implying that they’re necessarily unequal, just different, complimentary, so that both are necessary (which is, in fact, true for conception!).
This example raises the separate, though perhaps related, issue, of whether it’s necessary for marriage to have a sexual component. (i.e. do love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage?)
Since people can marry/stay married even if they can’t function sexually, the answer is no.
Gorsnak, is it feasible, in your view, that it be treated like any other contract?
I agree. The Gov’t should get out of the marriage business and define some other term that represents some sort of union between 2 or more people for tax and benefit reasons.
Reason for: If we truely want a society where women are completely equal to men in every respect then gay marriage can’t be denied - I’m just not sure we want this.
Another reason is to help ‘normalize’ homosexuals.
Be fair, he was using lawyerspeak all along there, and finally did permit himself to be coaxed into explaining. Apparently in the rarefied air of Constitutional analysis, “rational” means “capable of being articulated as a post hoc, ad hoc rationalization, on the spot, dependent upon the case involved, no matter whatever real purpose the supporters of a law wish, no matter how blatantly yanked out of anyone’s ass”. It’s no surprise that the board’s lawyers are no longer trying to defend or even explain that peculiar definition of “rational”, but this is the first time I’ve seen one of you deny that it exists.
Then you’d simply be replacing “marriage” with an equivalent word. What’s the point in changing the word you use? It’s akin to pretending you can somehow get the government out of the taxation business just by changing the word for “tax.”
Well I was thinking of reserving the word ‘marriage’ to mean the standard meaning, but it would have no legal basis anymore.
Marriage will always be an issue of government. There are all sorts of laws which differentiate between married and single people, and they’re not going to go away: Property issues, child raising, divorce, taxation, health care, etc.
Exactly. “Gay marriage” is shorthand for “marriage between two people of the same sex.” No person advocating gay marriage is saying that only gay people should be allowed to marry someone of the same sex, just that they’re the ones most likely to want to. I’ve personally given a far-fetched hypothetical situation in which my former ward and I might want to marry under improbable but possible events. The proposal would simply delete “of the opposite sex” from the usual definition of marriage, enabling any person to marry any other consenting unmarried unrelated adult [strike]of the opposite sex[/strike].
As for your “they already have equal rights” argument, the point is that straight people are entitled to marry the person of their choice (assuming the choice is mutual), while gay people are not. As an incisive wag put it elsewhere (and I’ve quoted before), “OK, you have the right to marry a woman, and so do I. Good, you get Dr. Ruth, and I get Jennifer Anniston. They’re both women, so you should be happy.”
For those who support gay marriage, but are opposed to incest, how do you justify your position?
This is why I am opposed to gay marriage:
1 and 2 : Irrelevant.
3 : Better two people who care for a child, than the state or a couple of the opposite sex who don’t care or are abusive.
4 : Most people in the world hate Bush, from the polls I’ve seen. Should the majority of humanity be forbidden marriage ?
5 : You have a very limited knowledge of understanding if you think only gay men indulge in anal sex. Plus, it’s irrelevant.
6 : Neither can millions of straights, including all postmenopausal women. Should their marriages be dissolved ?
7 : Very complex and expensive ways, which don’t always work. Requiring gays to use them is unfair.
8 : Irrelevant. You could use the same argument to forbid anything.
Actually, it’s not my favorite thing to see either, as a matter of personal preference. I also think it’s gross to see two ugly people kissing, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
Even if you’re right that the healthiest environment involves both a male and a female parent, (a) having two same sex parents might be healthy enough, and way healthier than some male/female (not to mention single-parent) households, and (b) this isn’t really an objection to a gay couple marrying but to their raising children, which is a different issue.
It’s not fair to judge any group (including those that you yourself belong to, whatever they are) by their most vocal, radical nutcases.
Not that I know of, though there are other risks involved in anal sex. For what it’s worth, not all gays (and relatively few lesbians) practice “sticking objects into the out hole,” while quite a few heterosexual couples do. But what does this have to do with marriage?
Is creating children the only reason for marriage? Should infertile couples be allowed to marry?
Interesting list of reasons.
2 and 3. Perhaps I might think that your reasons are too stupid to be publicly presented. Does my opinion about them affect your freedom of speech? If gay people have rights, they have rights regardless of what you think. In the case of 3, studies have indicated that it is emotionally healthier for a child to have two parents than one, for fairly obvious reasons, and that a parental role model of each sex is not necessary for healthy development. (We have a child raised by a gay couple who is a member here; he seems not to have been harmed in the slightest by the circumstances of his upbringing, and has a pretty healthy (straight) sexuality and social skills.)
Look up Log Cabin Republicans. Also explain to me what constitutes a “radical liberal” to you, and why people seeking redress of being deprived of their rights would be anything but?
According to a nine-year-old of my acquaintance, a penis is for peeing with. And if you are not acquainted with the fact, more straight couples than gay couples engage in anal intercourse. [It’s fascinating that people always equate gay sex with anal intercourse, by the way. Anyone have a theory on why?]
Completely true. And absolutely irrelevant to the issue of who can contract a valid marriage. Or the law would mandate divorces whenever the woman arrives at menopause, has a hysterectomy, either spouse proves to be infertile, etc.
Read up on what can be done by contract or will or notarized statement and what is exclusive to married couples. Then read up on gay widows and widowers who have been screwed over by their deceased spouses’ families. You might also consider the inequity of a $10 marriage license versus $500 and up in lawyer fees to prepare the equivalent documents, which cover only some of the contingencies that marriage automatically provides for.
Wonderful: slippery slope. And there’s a difference between what society “considers acceptable” and what is legal or illegal. Any book on Constitutional law will be an eye-opener on that subject.
Thudlow Boink made an interesting point earlier related to slippery slope, by the way. The issue of incest has, I think, been dealt with in other threads. But can we tackle the age of consent issue without getting into hyperbole?
IMO, the average teenager does not have the emotional maturity to contract marriage – and I’d include a fair number of people who are past the local age of consent. However, teenagers mature intellectually and emotionally at quite varying rates from “the average teenager.”
Personally I’d support a measure that defined the minimum age for marriage, not in terms of a calendar age, but by saying that anyone who has not attained “majority” in the legal sense might go before the court to seek the right to marry in exactly the same way and with the same sort of standard if not exactly the same standard as he or she would use to seek the status of emancipated minor. From what I’ve read, the requirements are that there must be some assurance of a means of support and that the person so petitioning demonstrate adequate social maturity to deal with being independently responsible for him/herself.
Those strike me as good grounds for a minor choosing to marry. And if a particularly mature 14-year-old qualifies, fine. Because he or she is the exception to the general rule. On the other hand, teenage couples marrying as soon as they’re legal and falling out of love and divorcing a year later could stand to be minimized.
? They can do all sorts of cool stuff like that these days Science truly is the gay guy’s (or gay gals) friend!And does someone want to explain to me the argument about the family being the building block for the reproduction of our species (as argued by Australian PM John Howard). Surely thats a non starter as an argument - either gay folks are never going to contribute to reproducing the speices whether they are married or not, because they are gay and not interested in option 6 above - so the net effect on the species is nil anyway - or they are gonong to have kids via option 6, thus negating the argument anyway. Or am I not thinking this through?
mm
What about people who experiment with the same sex or consider themselves bi-curious?
My point was that I’m not convinced by the arguments of radicals and I’m also not convinced by the argument that a person should be able to marry whoever they want to.
Which is disgusting, but surely it is the primary form of sex between gay males and gay marriage encourages this behaviour.
Sure marriage isn’t completely about raising children, but there is a correlation and it has impacts on inheritance and incest laws between biologically and legally related individuals. Do you really think a law could pass saying you can be married, but you can’t have children?
So what?
This is quite possibly the lamest reason to oppose gay marriage imaginable.
Scientists may not have made much headway in figuring out why people are gay, but they have determined pretty conclusively that the gender of a child’s parents is pretty much immaterial to their health and well-being. In fact, studies have found that the children of gay parents are, on average, happier, more mentally balanced, and more academically successful than the children of straight parents. The reason why isn’t hard to figure out: gay couples don’t ever get pregnant by accident. It takes considerable amount of work and effort for a gay couple to get a kid, especially if they’re guys. They’re not going to go through all that effort if they aren’t absolutely committed to raising that kid.
Of course, that’s got virtually nothing to do with marriage. I’d like to get married some day. I’m not very interested in ever having a kid. Even if my choice of a spouse makes me a poor choice to be a parent, why should that prevent me from having a spouse if we never want to have kids?
George Bush wanted to ammend the Constitution of the United States to specifically enshrine discrimination against us in the most revered document in this nation… and you’re blaming us for hating him? Do you know that more gays voted Bush in 2000 than voted for Gore? He’d probably have a lot more queer support today if he hadn’t tried to fuck us over to gain some political capital.
And Brokeback Mountain is a movie, based on a fictional short story. Why does this movie cement your bias against gays, but not your bias against… oh, say, cowboys? Most gays don’t herd sheep in the 1960s. Most gays don’t marry women and then screw around with other guys on the side, either. On the plus side, you’ve trumped reason #2 for lameness, which is an impressive accomplishment.
BTW, did you even see the movie?
Not all gay men have anal sex. And quite a few straight men engage in it with their wives and girlfriends. And then there are lesbians, for whom anal sex is even rarer. Can you explain the logic behind forbidding Ellen Degeneris from wedding because Rupert Everett may enjoy sticking things up his ass? 'cause I’m just not seeing it.
Incidentally, the vagina is also an “out hole.” So is the mouth. So is the penis, for that matter.
And no, we are not at any greater risk for colon cancer than anyone else.
What does this have to do with marriage, anyway?
So you think infertile people should be barred from marriage too, then?
There are ways to get some of them. It costs thousands of dollars in legal fees, does not always survive legal challenges from third parties, and not all the benefits of marriage are available through legal contracts. Incidentally, if you think gays should have access to these rights in this manner, why not allow them to have them through the much simpler, cheaper, and cost-effective method of legal marriage?
Please provide details as to what you’re talking about, and how gay marriage would lead to it.
What about them?
So listen to the non-radicals advocating gay marriage. There are plenty of them, even in this very thread.
Your gag reflex is not the determiner of legality. I’m grossed out by the idea of watching fat people fuck. Is that sufficient reason for me to oppose their marriage? Are gay people forcing you to watch them have sex with each other? How is this remotely relevant?
And no, anal sex is not the primary form of sexual intimacy between gay males. While it can be a lot of fun, it’s also a lot of work, and is (no pun intended) a bit of a pain in the ass.
And again, what does this have to do with marriage? Are there a lot of gay guys out there who are holding off on getting buggered until they can do it within the bonds of Holy Matrimony? That strikes me as very unlikely.
What impact would it have on incest and inheritance laws that don’t already exsist as a result of heterosexual marriage?
That, sir, is a quote for the ages!
mm
1) science has not yet determined what causes homosexuality
So what? How does that concern the rights of individuals, regardless of scientific inquiry?
2) I think it is gross to see two guys kissing
I’m not particularly eager to watch the process, myself. Of course, I’m not that keen watching a man and woman standing in public tongue-tickling each others’ tonsils. What do public displays of affection have to do with marriage?
3) I think it is healthier for a child to be raised by both a male and a female and having a parent of the same gender as you can help you with gender specific issues
Your personal–and unsupported–views on the issue are, again, irrelevant to their rights as persons. (And since you were eager to make scientific inquiry your number 1 objection, why not accept the scientific inquiries into this issue that have failed to demonstrate harm?)
4) Most vocal gays tend to be radical liberals with an irrational hatred of Bush which doesn’t help to sway me to their cause and movies like Brokeback Mountain just help to reinforce the stereotype that gays lack morals
So you have decided to oppose same sex marriage because people who might want to participate oppose a president who opposes their wishes and because you think that fictional portrayals of some relationships demonstrate a lack of morals? Are you aware of the complete lack of morality displayed in heterosexual relationships every afternoon and evening as portrayed on television soaps and dramas? We should ban hetero marriages, forthwith!
5) The penis was meant to fit inside of the vagina - surely there are health consequences of sticking objects into the out hole. Do gays have a higher risk of colon cancer?
So you would like to see laws (re-)passed to outlaw a woman performing fellatio on her husband or hetero couples engaging in anal sex (and fund the police forcces to check each bedroom each night to ensure compliance)?
6) A gay person cannot have children with their lover because the creation of a baby takes sperm and egg
So what? Not all marriages lead to children and gay couples could always adopt (if the laws were not so discriminatory).
7) A lawyer will have to comment on this, but surely there are ways to get legal benefits for inheritance and hospital visits. What are single people supposed to do?
What do single people do now? They get married if there is a person of the opposite sex whom they wish to have rights of attendance at hospitals and such. (Even if they never go through a service, many states recognize “common law” marriages–but only for hetero couples.)
8) I think it will lead to the legalization of other things that are currently considered unacceptable
Perhaps some things that are now considered unacceptable should be legalized. Alternatively, legalizing same sex marriage will have no affect on other activities. This attempt at a slippery slope argument is too vague to even be silly.
Just for the record, I have no problem with incest.
Science has not determined what causes heterosexuality either.
Don’t look. I think it’s gross to see someone take a shit, but I wouldn’t want to outlaw it either.
What’s worse: being raised by one woman (no man) or by two women? Seems to me the most important thing is whether the child is loved and cared for. But since you are a scientific type person (your point #1), can you point out some scientific studies that prove being raised in a gay household is detriminental to a child’s well being?
What about heterosexuals who hate Bush? Should they be allowed to marry. As for Brokeback Mountain, I haven’t seen it, but let’s assume for the sake of argument that it portrays gays being “immoral”. Guess what… it’s a movie! We don’t make our laws based on movies.
What about heterosexuals who engage in anal sex. If only 10% of heterosexuals do so, that’s almost certainly a larger absolute number than the entire gay population. And of course not all gays engage in anal sex, either.
Many heterosexuals cannot have or do not want to have kids.
So what? There are still many benefits of marriage that cannot be obtained w/o an acutal marriage. As for single people, they’re supposed to marry if they want marriage benfits.
Just because those things are unacceptable, doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be legalized. Are you saying that laws should never change? It used to be unacceptable (and illegal) for two heterosexuals to cohabitate. Times change.