Which states restrict your ability to marry the person of your choice because of your condition?
Nor do we feel the need to penalize them as a societal “bad.” Actually, I think the “why” of homosexuality is irrelevant, but you’re the one who first compared homosexuality to a genetic defect.
Hardly. It’s also the way we get overpopulation and the propagation of genetic defects.
Nevertheless, in this country, the law doesn’t conform to religious teaching.
“Homosexuality” and “heterosexuality” refer to orientation, i.e. desire, not behavior. But fine - if we’re talking about behavior as a societal good, how shall we value heterosexual couples whose behavior, by accident or design, cannot propagate the species?
I beg to differ. The rights and privileges which automatically accrue to members of a married couple have been well documented. These rights and privileges are not trivial, and same-sex couples do NOT benefit from them now.
Well, you were the person who brought up thousands of years. If what we’re talking about is American History, the arguments I offered to Magellan still apply–marriage today, is just not primarily about procreation–it simply isn’t designed with any kind of tailoring towards that. If you want to “defend” a marriage based in procreation, first we need to have a legal concept of marriage that is actually supportive of procreation.
And again, in all but a simple biological sense (which we don’t care about for any heterosexual couple when asking if they can marry), gay people can have children. They absolutely can raise families.
On the other hand, if, as you say, “Marriage was an institution that established the family structure as the basic unit upon which society was founded.”–i.e. marriage is about creating stable families, I will point to some gay families (two loving partners, three well-developed children), and argue that making them more stable by giving them the right to marry also serves the purpose of marriage–creating the family units on which we base society.
Well, this is the first time I’ve heard this argument. I hate to break it to the people who believe it, **but the condom has already had, and will have a far greater effect to separate interest in sex from interest in breeding than gay people ever will. **If you really fear we’re losing interest in having kids, why is gay marriage the biggest problem on your radar? How is it even on your radar compared to all those heterosexual couples learning that sex is fun, and need not have anything to do with having babies. Where are the petitions for state constitutional amendments against the condom? (since you’re not interested in talking constitutional theory, we can ignore Griswold v. CT.)
For that matter, is there any evidence for the argument that gay marriage (for that’s what we’re talking about here–not gay people, not gay couples, not gay families, all of which exist, and won’t go away if gay marriage is banned) leads to less interest in raising families? The gay people aren’t going to “naturally” procreate any more inside or out of marriage.
Of course, this argument makes more internal sense if it’s framed as an argument against homosexuality-- that if those gay people were only straight, we’d have more procreation. If that’s what you’re arguing, please say so–don’t hide it behind opposition to gay marriage, and then we can debate the actual issues.
However, even accepting the premise that some people may fear gay marriage will lead to that result. I just don’t see anything to justify that fear. If there is, I’d love to see it.
This is an argument against gay adoption. Again, it is not an argument against gay marriage-- at least until you point out to me where gay couples that are married can adopt, but gay people cannot adopt.
Almost all states allow single people to adopt. So barring gay marriage will not affect whether or not gay people can adopt children. The argument simply doesn’t support the conclusion it’s put forward to support.
Gay adoption is a different issue-and one that is broadly settled: almost every state allows adoption regardless of sexual preference, and many allow gay couples to adopt.
The fact that people attracted to other people of their own sex can adopt in almost every state in the union is an argument to rebut the contention that gay couples can’t now raise children (and hence if the “purpose” of marriage) is to help raise kids, then it’s a funny way of defining that purpose to exclude those kids.
If you want to argue against gay adoption, or single adoption, that’s a different thread. Right now, gay people can adopt–and it makes no sense to base your argument for barring gay marriage on protecting a state of the world other than how the world would be without gay marriage.
And from your other post,
Not true. You can marry your partner, and get a whole lot of state and federal rights. They cannot. There are other issues, but that’s enough to disprove your argument.
Also not true. I’m a little surprised that you’re making this argument–given how easy it is to defeat it, but here I go anyhow. I’m going to use a practical exercise to fight ignorance by showing you how to identify this set of rights you claim doesn’t exist.
Find someone of the other gender.
Get a marriage license.
Go into any courthouse in your state. Have a judge marry you and the person you found in step (1).
Guess what—YOU JUST GOT AN EXPANDED SET OF RIGHTS. That’s the one the pro-gay marriage “faction” wants.
It includes:
-The right to file state taxes as married. [no contract between gay partners can give you this–the state has to act.]
-The right to file federal taxes as married. [ditto–and to date, the federal government will not give this to a gay couple legally married under their state’s law. So much for federalism.]
-The right to automatically inherit from your husb/wife if she dies without a will. [again, ditto… the thing the gay couple would need to create to get this right is a will–something you don’t need because you’re married, and have the right to inherit even if your husb/wife dies the day before you visit your lawyer to make a will.]
-The right to make healthcare choices for your husb/wife.
and many more.
You have to be born to have genetic defects. The case for overpopulation is overstated as far as I can tell.
In some cases it does. Thou shalt not kill, steal, etc… and so…
I don’t know, what do you think?
That’s correct, they do not because those rights when originally granted were based around family breaks and incentives. For me personally, I’d rather change the way the state interacts with marriage, remove it from marriage altogether rather than selectively allow marriage. We should handle it via contract law and then let individuals deal with the semantics as they see fit.
Indeed it is. Saying gay marriage will do that it a gross overstatement, though. It’s not even a radically new concept introduced just in the last four years or so. I remember (unofficial) gay marriage being the punchline of a joke of the TV series Taxi over 25 years ago and the humour wasn’t in that the concept was so foreign and alien, but the deadpan way Tony Danza described it being the result of the very close friendship of two of his Vietnam War buddies.
Wasn’t that exact argument used to justify laws preventing married couples from getting access to birth control back in 1900 or so? It represented an unwarranted intrusion by the state then, too.
Anyway, for some married couples, childbearing is the most important part of the relationship. For many others, it is not. Besides, why does a married couple have to choose? Can’t they be in love and not want kids?
It’s a big deal because people are making it so by their resistance. If gay marriage caused spontaneous explosions or had some other demonstrably negative effect, it wouldn’t be nearly as controversial.
Find me a negative effect caused by gay marriage and I’ll change to your side in a heartbeat. If you can’t, have the courage to admit you can’t.
Well it was understood, and then it drifted from that, which social conservatives resisted tooth and nail and then lost. Now they are being called hypocrites for having lost those battles when they want to keep trying to stem the tide. They keep slipping on down the slope of the sexual revolution. You see that as a good thing, they see it as a bad thing.
Yes, they can adopt.
And that’s a valid argument certainly. I’ve made it myself when arguing your side of the debate.
And the same people who oppose gay marriage oppose promiscuous sex and birth control.
As to the parts addressed at me: Post 360.
It is viewed as one piece in a larger puzzle. Yes, birth rates have declined significantly and promiscuity has grown by a great degree since the sexual revolution, acceptance of homosexuality is but a part of that. The same people resisting homosexuality are resisting birth control and abortion as well.
Well the Christian position is that our genetically based impulses are to be resisted in order to become more Godly.
Well the thing is because of your different values you wouldn’t even value the evidence if presented to you. I could show you declining birthrates and other such statistics, but it wouldn’t sway you. You might even say it’s a separate issue, but it all is taken together by the other side in the debate, it’s a slide toward relaxed moral standards are regards sexuality. They see it as a degeneration into a bestial hedonistic state where feeling good becomes the highest goal.
This is disingenuous, either you are fighting for equal rights or you are not. Personally I am for gay adoption. Gay marriage is irrelevant outside of gay adoption as far as I am concerned.
Who is arguing that position?
That’s a good argument.
Show me one homosexual who cannot do all of these things.
There is not a single homosexual in the nation who is barred from marrying someone of the opposite sex. They want to marry someone of the SAME sex, thus ‘expanded’ rights.
Yes, this is actually a legacy from the time before women worked to give men a break on taxes by taking on dependents.
ditto.
Actually I’m not married legally so my wife’s property would default to my daughter and vice versa. But all of this is covered under the idea of civil unions that were put forward. Those were rejected, they want to be CALLED married, if this was all that was being sought victory would have been achieved. This fight is over the definition of the word ‘marriage’ and nothing else. If it were only the legal contractual issues it would be settled and over already.
Well, if you want to base your argument on history, so can I. The concept of gay marriage isn’t a new one. I wish I could name the exact episode, but suffice it to say that 25-30 years ago, the idea of gay marriage was mentioned casually on a situation comedy, and wasn’t a new concept then, either. As a result, I’m inclined to dismiss all history-based arguments since they cancel each other out.
I’m not sure that being ignorant on multiple fronts is something to be proud of, myself.
What legal incentives do you mean? Tax deductions relating to children that can appear on a jointly-filed return, or something?
It’s controversial for no logical reason and opponents are resisting because of ignorance. I’m prepared to cheerfully retract that statement upon presentation of a solidly-reasoned anti-SSM argument.
Excuse me, I’m inclined to doubt your statements of being a supporter of gay marriage, because they are contradicted by a greater number of your statements that indicate you are opposed to it. Suffice it to say, if a sufficiently compelling negative effect of gay marriage could be shown to exist, I would alter my stance accordingly.
So it’s an amusing anecdotal straw man. Got it. 25-30 years ago doesn’t really quite qualify as ‘history’ in the sense I am using it. A little bit of a scale problem there. Right, so a show made in the 80s cancels out centuries of world history…umm…yeah. You’re kind of fond of this worldview generally though.
Yawn The old, “if you disagree it’s out of ignorance”, canard.
That and filing jointly in that the wife was considered a dependent of the husband.
Oh well then it’s settled their side is illogical, your side is logical. Funny the pro-SSM argument seems all based on emotion to me. I don’t see any reason involved in it either. It’s all about feelings in both instances. Show me a study that proves that SSM marriage is beneficial to society that is reproduceable in a lab. :rolleyes:
LOL, incapable of separating the argument from the person, got it. What was it you were saying about rationality above? I couldn’t hear you behind all the appeals to emotion.
I really wonder what people who think I would fake support for gay marriage assume that I am getting out of it? Why would I want to kiss up to people whose position I oppose? Really, what’s in it for me? If I were against gay marriage why wouldn’t I just come out and say so?
If you don’t support the views you’re arguing, in all honesty, I don’t really think I’m going to learn anything about the justification behind people’s opposition to gay marriage–I’m going to learn about your interpretation of that opposition, which may or may not have anything to do with the rationales people actually use to justify gay marriage. That is actual creep of what we’re trying to do in this thread–unlike what you complained about.
I’m not all that interested in debating why gay marriage supporters think people oppose gay marriage. I could learn that without assistance. Doing so here takes away from our ability to find out the actual reasons opponents are against gay marriage; as someone who has posted frequently in this thread complaining about it moving off target, I"ll ask you to act consistently with that request.
Dodges the question. Again, if you’re going to argue their side, why is gay marriage the bigger deal?
This is a convoluted way of saying “no, there’s no reason gay marriage makes birth rates decline–(especially given that gay marriage has been legal since 2003, and the sexual revolution started in the 60’s.) This is in effect opposition to homosexuality.” Am I correct?
Are you now asserting a position, or asserting what you think the Christian position is?
Well, you could try. Especially as someone who is in this thread arguing devil’s advocate, you should know better than to presume my posts indicate my values, let alone how those values determine what evidence I will and won’t value.
On the other hand, I do understand that correlation is not causation. So perhaps the risk is that I won’t “value” the evidence because it lacks value.
Well, if you’re arguing for equal rights, you shouldn’t care about the relevancy of adoption to gay marriage–the ability to raise kids has nothing to do with straight marriage.
Show me one homosexual who cannot do all of these things.
Even by that definition, same-sex marriage advocates don’t want expanded rights for homosexuals, but for everyone–although heterosexuals won’t much care. Further, I think the artifice in this argument can be made clear–it contends that “homosexuals want rights heterosexuals don’t want, (and hence are “special rights”, as heterosexuals don’t value them)–but they should be happy that we “equally” award rights that are of great value to us and of no value to them.” the “Right” homosexuals have is exactly the same one you turn down as valueless, and just a “special right” for homosexuals.
Also, I invite you to go back and read Loving v. Virginia, which I cited to you earlier. The analysis is exactly on point–there, the state law gave blacks and whites rights that were exactly equal in the same way you contend these rights are equal-- each was only allowed to marry members of their own race. The Supreme Court concluded that was neither valid nor equal–so why should it be here? (Again, the Varnum (iowa marriage) court addresses these issues far better than I could–you should try to understand their arguments, which I wholeheartedly adopt, and have posted below with emphasis added).
And is preserved as a tool to give married couples fairer tax treatment when one earns far more than the other. Even so, the fact that it may be antiquated or useless in a modern era does not in any way contradict the contention that it is a benefit heterosexuals can get through marriage to the person they love, and homosexuals cannot.
Ditto. Further, the change in federal law away from state-driven definitions of marriage is the result of a stupid 1996 statue, not a vestige a bygone age at all (Except that then was an age of prosperity). Before the Defense of Marriage Act, the IRS defined marriage by looking to what the state of residence considered a legal marriagein almost every case (except for marriage solely for tax purposes).
In all honesty, I don’t care about your marital status. I do care that you’re using it to dodge the point–(just like you’re avoiding the point on taxes by calling them antiquated–if you really think they are insubstantial, do you want to pay me the extra money the IRS is charging me because I’m unmarried?–It’s not a trivial sum.
Further, I’m going to have to ask for a cite on which state offered civil unions, and when they were “rejected”, and by whom–who made the offer, who spoke for the “homosexual community,” and why I’ve never heard of such a thing. For one thing, plenty of states just don’t have civil unions, and seem opposed to gay rights, or to sanctioning gay relationships-- you yourself seem to concede earlier in your post–that much of the opposition to gay marriage is in fact opposition to gay people existing. That suggests pretty strongly that there isn’t (as you purport) a strong consensus in favor of allowing same-sex civil unions, sadly defeated by gay people who just aren’t happy with that… because they want the very same thing heterosexuals get.
Further, as has been pointed out repeatedly in this thread, every proposal so far offered of a separate-but-equal system (for that is what it is… We get Marriage, you get Civil Unions…but don’t get mad… they’re really the same thing) fails in some way to give the same rights to both sides in all situations. Further, if, as many contend, there is a substantial personal benefit to having your relationship called marriage, that makes the difference itself unequal. Why don’t you propose how one will work.
And if I weren’t arguing the Devil’s Advocate position, and Magellan weren’t arguing his position, there would be no thread at all. I am telling you what people have told me directly, when I actually listened to them without thinking, “Oh they are just bigots and that’s all that informs their opinions.” Value that or don’t, pardon me if I am disturbing the carefully crafted echo chamber.
I’ve answered this over and over.
It is considered one part of the decoupling of sex and procreation.
Asserting what I think based on what people have told me.
If they don’t I can accept that, but if you’re laying some kind of clever trap where you get to spring an ‘a-ha’ moment I have to warn you, I might be underwhelmed. So are you or are you not arguing your own views?
Or you won’t value the evidence because you won’t think that what it shows is important.
Much lamented by social conservatives. They see this as the final nail in the coffin of traditional marriage, and well they’re right, it is.
In a world where Divorces are easy, and marriage has nothing to do with raising children, marriage has no value. It’s just a form of incorporation. A superficial trapping to a hedonistic lifestyle. It’s already this way for many people and will be for a few more people when gay marriage is adopted. Marriage is becoming a superficial affectation.
Still it’s an expansion of rights, for everyone, as you say.
Well because there the definition of marriage was not disputed. They were against marriage between different races, but they didn’t dispute that it was actually marriage. If you asked people at the time on both sides of that divide what they thought about two men marrying one another they would’ve looked at you like you grew a third head.
Yes.
Right.
No, I dodged the point by saying that those issues are addressed by civil unions. The real issue here is not about equal legal rights at all, it’s about who gets to define the word marriage.
Many people in this thread have rejected the idea of civil unions. They want full-blown marriage.
Right, it’s purely emotional, hence ‘irrational’. If a civil union confers all the rights, precisely as a marriage does, then what ‘rational’ basis is there to prefer marriage?
It’s an anecdote, not a straw man, and it’s of more relevance than references to events that happened 150 or more years ago, beyond the memory of anyone currently living.
What is the world history on this issue? It’s not represented in any physical way like Egyptian pyramids and carbon-dated artifacts. It’s not reflected in styles of music or art that have since fallen from prominence. Doesn’t using a “historical” argument for this issue just represent an opportunity to cherry-pick factoids? If there was a historical period when gay marriage was accepted and it led to some huge disaster, present that. “We’ve always done it that way” isn’t compelling if it’s the only response you have to “why can’t we try something else?”
If you have anything at all resembling an argument that is based on reason, please please please present it.
Please.
Is that still mandatory or something? These days, is there any legal distinction between a stay-at-home wife and a stay-at-home husband? I guess there may some elements regarding maternity leave that don’t have (and likely will never have) perfect parity, but offhand I don’t know of anything else.
Anyway, in a gay marriage, both spouses could work, or one could support the other… with the possible exception of both spouses in a lesbian marriage being pregnant at the same time, I don’t know how a gay marriage is going to significantly vary from a hetero marriage for tax purposes.
Well, under my admittedly limited understanding of American constitutional law, citizens get equal treatment unless some compelling reason exists to not give them equal treatment. In recent decades, there is in increasing tendency to view homosexuality as something that does not comprise a compelling reason to render different treatment. Heterosexual marriages are recognized by law, regardless of whether or not the spouses can (or want to) produce children. Therefore legal marriage does not depend on the production of children. In combination with seeking to render equal treatment of citizens before the law, and since marriage can exist regardless of the ability to produce children, there is no compelling reason to prevent homosexual marriage. This isn’t an appeal to emotion - it’s a process of transitive logic:
Premise: Giving citizens equal treatment before the law is a good thing. (I need not argue as to whether or not it is a good thing, I just acknowledge that this represents the spirit of the 14th amendment and similar legislation.)
Premise: Discrimination based on sexual orientation is a bad thing. (Again, I don’t have to agree or disagree with the statement - I just have to recognize the various laws on the books that express this concept.)
Premise: Legal recognition of marriage (i.e. two consenting adults who enter into an arrangement where each designates the other as primary next of kin, inheritor, and sharer of community property) is a good thing, regardles of whether or not the marriage produces children. (Again, I don’t have to agree or disagree, just acknowledge the body of laws that relate to marriage and point out that none of them make child-production a requirement of marriage.)
Conclusion: Discrimination that denies access to legal marriage based on sexual orientation is a bad thing. (I don’t have to make an emotional leap - as far as I can tell, this conclusion follows naturally from existing American laws that recognize marriage while discouraging unequal treatment).
I have no reason to believe you are making a devil’s advocate type of argument, or if you are, you’re not doing it very well because I’ve yet to see you present an argument that couldn’t easily slip from the lips of someone who is against gay marriage for no other reason than because he hates fags. There’s no advocacy here, just repetition of vapid points that are indistinguishable from ignorance.
Those are yours, not mine. If there’s a flaw in any of the above reasoning, I invite you to point it out and I appreciate constructive criticism that may help me express my reasoning in a clearer manner.
Well, I could listen to you… or, I could listen to you:
So which is it?
Because I can tell you I’ve learned as much about the actual reasons behind opponents of gay marriage from you as I would have from an empty thread.
A/K/A “I’m arguing that same-sex marriage opponents really oppose homosexuality.”
You see, if people were arguing against homosexual people, and trying to hide that in opposition to gay marriage, that would suggest even they feel they’re bigoted-because if they didn’t, they’d voice their opinion. Boy, it would be nice if I learned what their
I’m laying the kind of clever trap where I’m tired of shadowboxing–If there is a claim that there is evidence here, let’s see what it is, and if it stands up for what it is claimed to stand up for.
Further, one nice thing about evidence is that it’s objective–that it stands for itself. If not, it’s not evidence–it’s an opinion as to what some other piece of evidence means.
You’re the one who claimed the evidence existed. I didn’t. Support your point or retract it.
And if I asked people in 1840 what they thought of marriage between the races, they’d look at me like I grew a third head.
Go… To… Boston. Go to city hall. Find two men walking out and kissing each other. That isn’t a “disputed” marriage. That is actual, legal marriage.
This would make sense if a form of civil union existed that (even ignoring the value of the name), meant that two people with that civil union were treated exactly the same under the law everywhere as if they were married. As I have already pointed out in this thread, even with identical legal rights, the treatment would be different when the two couples asked other jurisdictions to recognize their marriage/civil union.
Yes, because when people get married, the federal government does it. It may recognize a valid state marriage, but it doesn’t create its own marriages (except in DC, under a set of laws distinct from general federal law).
A/K/A “I can’t point to where same-sex couples were actually offered civil unions, and the reason they didn’t get them is they said “we want marriage””
Or, since you know about the Bush example, please cite a source supporting your claim that it didn’t happen because of opposition from gay people?
Again, dodging the point made before that civil unions do not do so, and can not do so unless you make all the laws everywhere in the world change.
Furthermore, I ask the same question back. If there isn’t really any benefit to having your relationship called “marriage”, why are opponents fighting so hard to keep it?
I assume you’d lose any veneer of credibility you have on this and similar issues, and if you participated in future threads of similar topic, somebody would sooner or later link back to this one as evidence of your lack of credibility and your opinions would be dismissed, fairly or unfairly, as a product of ignorance. How significant this is to you is something only you can decide.
This is based on my observations of what has happened to other posters who through their postings became heavily linked to an issue of interest and I can provide examples if needed.
On a personal note, in this particular case the issue as far as I’m concerned is individual rights, not gay rights per se.
Heteros would also get those rights. They’d certainly be welcome to marry someone of the same sex too if they wish. Everyone’s rights are thusly expanded.
Hey, it makes exactly as much sense as telling homosexuals they currently have the right to marry the opposite sex.
Eh, I could take or leave this message board. My credibility here doesn’t matter to me that much. I dropped this one for 2 years once before, and I have been willing to drop a message board I post far more on and have more friends on. My rep amongst strangers on the internet is not something I care much about. My support for gay marriage is basically out of my libertarian side. I also support legalized gambling, prostitution and drug use. So my position is entirely consistent. Even if opposed gay marriage on some personal moral ground I would still support it in terms of legality. The bottom line is I really just don’t care that much. Let gay people be married and be happy, mazultov.
My issue with this and similar ones is that I am sad to watch a great civilization die. Most of the people here say good riddance to Christendom, but I think it’s quite sad. And what’s replacing it is incredibly crass. Just hopelessly and fundamentally crass. That’s really the part that weighs on me, that makes me sad. It may be getting replaced with something more egalitarian and more free, but its at a great cost, and its a cost many people just simply do not notice or even care about.
