Hey, tomndebb, I swear I didn’t see your post before I made mine!
What about them ?
Someone who wants equal rights is not a “radical”, and I don’t think it’s your business who someone marries.
Many hundreds of millions ( at least ) people disagree with your belief anal sex is disgusting; again, not your business.
No; what has that to do with anything ?
Actually, there are plenty of places even today. I got married in the Ethical Culture Society, and the ceremony had no mention of any god. Not a problem.
In Pennsylvania, thanks to the Quaker heritage, people can marry without any justice or minister, so long as there is a witness.
The problem is that the gummint gives all sorts of benefits to married people, and withholding them for same sex couples is unfair.
And there have never been movies about heterosexual affairs?
Others have mentioned heterosexual anal sex and oral sex. But you wish to outlaw masturbation.
<NRA>
Sir, you will have to pry my penis out of my cold, dead hand!
</NRA>
No, it’s “You’ll pry my penis from my warm,sticky hand !” 
Most vocal anti-gays tend to be radical pro-bushers who irrationally support Bush in spite of the overwhelming evidence of his malfeasance (his lies to support the invasion of Iraq, the no bid contracts to Haliburton, his vow to continue to break the law and engage in illegal torture and wiretaps) which don’t help sway me to their cause and reinforce the stereotype that anti-homosexuals lack morals.
Let’s get this “meant to” bullshit out of the way. Who meant it? I’m assuming you’re referring to God in which case you’re talking out your ass. How do you know that God didn’t intentionally create people to be gay for his own mysterious purposes? Look at all the homosexuals out there in the animal kingdom. Who the hell are you to say that gays aren’t part of God’s plan?
A heterosexual couple with a postmenopausal woman or a man who doesn’t produce fertile sperm cannot procreate either. Do you propose we run fertility tests as a prerequisite for marriage?
An extremely valid point you make here, except you’re running in the wrong direction with it to deny people rights instead of create more legal rights.
Lots of things have been illegal in the past which are perfectly legal now. Do you want to be on the side of history that fought against equal rights, or do you want to be with the camp that favors equal rights? Think about how people will look back on this in 50 years. Time is on our side.
This business about “tradition dictates that marriage = male marries female” may be true but it was tradition at one time to have slaves in the US.
Tradition is about the weakest argument I can think of to state that gays should not marry.
There is no satisfactory reason against gay marriage. They say well, that opens the door for somebody to marry his horse…fine with me …just make sure the horse is treated right with plenty of hay to eat.
Generally speaking, I think the principle should be that which is not outlawed, is permitted and there being no particularly good reason* to outlaw same-sex unions, they should be permitted.
*(Serket came up with a pretty comprehensive list, but others have demonstrated how worthless are the items in it)
Of course it isn’t quite as simple as that, because it’s not just a question of the state permitting something, it requires the state to recognise and enforce a few things, but still, I don’t see why that’s a problem; I (a heterosexual, if that matters) am in favour of same-sex unions because:
-Same-sex couples want to be united
-There’s no good reason to stop them.
In fact it’s not even that simple; additional to this is the fact that those opposing same-sex unions are lying about their motives; generating grasping, contrived and contorted lists of where penises are ‘meant to go’ etc, when what they really mean (and should just say, if it’s what they mean) is “I think God won’t like it”.
I have been dating a wonderful man for the past two years. We are both ethical, competent adults who take marriage very seriously. We are also both very much in love and I think my life would be very much deeper, better, and richer if I had the privilege of sharing my life with him. However, it’s highly unlikely we’ll have children.
Serket, what’s your opinion of this, based on the information I’ve given you?
One of my arguments for gay marriage is that people’s response for this will vary greatly depending on what sex they perceive me to be.
By the way, two people I’ve been friends with since childhood are among the most honorable, decent, moral people I know. Both of them have stood by their standards and done what’s right even when they got condemned for it. One of them is gay and has been with his partner for over a decade; one of them is straight and has been married for a few years now to the man she dated for over a decade. I’ve never seen any evidence that homosexuals are inherently more immoral than heterosexuals, although I’ve read enough people claiming that.
I’m also a nerd. I always have been, complete with glasses. Back when I was in high school, it was considered gross for nerds to kiss (not that that ever happened to me) or even want to kiss or be interested in someone of any sex. I’m afraid “It’s gross” is not an acceptable answer unless one is a 10 year old.
Siege
As much as I’d like to comment on what was said by Serket, I think everyone else has done a superb job already, so I’ll refrain.
It seems that the problem (some) people have with the idea of gay marriage is the word “marriage”. Others in this thread have made the point of creating a new form of partnership that would allow any two people to get the same legal/inheritance/custodial rights as a heterosexual marraige confers. Well, this is exactly what the UK has done - civil partnerships are now a reality and even though they are primarily intended to allow same sex partnerships to be legally recognised, they could in theory allow any two people to have their relationship registered (this includes heterosexual couples, incidentally).
The Act that led to the change in law is a very well crafted piece of legistlation that gives a new right to all which at the same time gives equal rights to some that didn’t have it before. It could, for example, allow a terminally ill person to ensure their property goes to their best friend by entering into a civil partnership if they wanted to stop their ex-spouse/family/other people getting their hands on it, or other such scenarios that one could envisage where people want fast and binding access to the legal rights conferred by marriage.
Civil partnerships have been in force since December and (as far as I’m aware) society hasn’t melted into a moral vacuum or fallen into the sea. Yet (hey, there’s every chance of that happening with or without civil partnerships).
Sooooooo… if we stopped talking about gay marriage and started talking about civil partnerships etc, would this make it more palatable to people? Or is any legal union between two people who are of the opposite sex automatically A Bad Thing?
But why shouldn’t it be called marriage; if you make plates out of pottery and I make them out of wood, you might feel that mine are not proper plates and you could argue that I should have to call mine ‘disc-shaped food vessels’, but really, me calling them plates doesn’t make yours any less plate-like.
I’m actually in favour of the government washing its hands of ‘marriage’ altogether; if you want a civil marriage, you find a hotel (or something) to host it and the state registers your civil partnership; if you want a religious marriage, you find a suitable religious body to conduct it and the state registers your civil partnership. Regardless of the sex of the participants. I don’t think any particular religious body should be compelled to conduct any form of marriage against its will though, but there’s no reason why that can’t cut both ways.
You say potayto I say potahto - I completely agree with you, but the reality is that I live in a country that has same sex partnerships largely due to the fact that we decided *not * to get into the whole marriage semantics debate. I can’t help but feel that the end justifies the means, so to speak.
This is really disappointing, Hamlet. I really thought you understood the role of the courts and the role of the legislature.
The rational basis test does NOT purport to identify which set of arguments are the best. It is satisfied if the arguments in question are rational. If ANOTHER set of arguments is also rational, and more compelling, that doesn’t upset the rational basis test at all.
In this thread, it seemed to me we were seeking the best answer – that is, when compared head to head, which set of arguments is stronger? Weighing all the arguments, what is the BEST policy to follow?
In other words, we should approach this thread as though we were the legislature, deciding which law to pass to best benefit our constituency.
The rational basis test is the one used by the judiciary. The judiciary does NOT ask itself what the best policy is. That determination is for the legislature. The judiciary asks itself, “Is there any rational basis for the legislature’s decision?”
So: for the judiciary to conclude that we must have same-sex marriage would be the wrong decision. There IS a rational basis for forbdding same-sex marriage.
For the legislature to pass laws recognizing same-sex marriage would be the wisest thing to do, because on balance the arguments favor same-sex marriage.
[set dog-in-fight = none]Purely for the sake of indulging a statistical snark, isn’t it the case that numerically more straight couples than gay engage in anal intercourse simply because there are numerically more of them? And isn’t it perfectly possible for the following to both be true:
- A randomly selected couple who stick it up the butt are more likely to be gay than straight
- A randomly selected gay (male) couple are more likely to use the tradesman’s entrance than a randomly selected straight couple
?
Addressing the [last question]: Because men like to fuck, and men don’t have cunts. So if gay men want to fuck, they’re not exactly spoiled for choice. Duh.
[/set]
I barely followed any of that. Does your post argue in favour or against gay marraige or for/against anal sex? Or neither? Or both?
Neither. The post would have read better if I hadn’t got one of the bullet points arse-backwards: it should have read
“- A randomly selected couple who stick it up the butt are more likely to be straight than gay.”
I was just chasing down a couple of bits of nonsense that my good friend Polycarp really knows better than to perpetrate.
More straight couples than gay practise anal sex for the same reason that more straights than gays eat porridge for breakfast: there are many more of them. Nevertheless, anal can be “stereotypically gay” simply because gays are more likely, man for man, to do it than straights are. (They may not be, for all I know.) To what extent gays actually do care for the practice - I neither know nor intend to lose sleep over the question.
30% of all accidents are caused by drunk drivers.
Therefore 70% of accidents are caused by sober drivers.
Therefore drunks are the safer drivers.
My point wasn’t that there are arguments that legislatures and judiciary have acccepted for denying homosexuals the right to marry, there are. I was simply pointing out that your appeared inability to come up with those arguments flies in the face of your belief that the arguments against SSM are rational and further legitimate governmental interests.
Again, I wasn’t pointing out the arguments either way, I was simply stunned by your coy inability to come up with arguments against it, when you’ve stated that those arguments are both rational and serve a legitimate governmental interest.
We agree. We’ve always agreed on this point. I just found it extremely disengenuous to feign ignorance when you were well aware of the arguments against SSM, and that YOU have found those arguments to be rational and furthering a legitimate governmental interest.
Its the business of the individuals who want to get married and if they are religious then yes they go to there respective religions.
WIthout religion is there really a difference between cohabitation and marriage?
I would argue for the removal of those benefits in general…just get the government out of it completely