Aside: What makes this subject so hard is that we have to go through 300 pages arguing against this every fucking time it comes up because nobody on the homophobe side ever bothers to read the threads we’ve done on it before.
To yorick73: So…do we need to start establishing fertility before we allow a man and a woman to marry? Can women over the age of menopause get married or not? Can women who’ve had hysterectomies or tubal ligations or IUDs or men who’ve had vasectomies marry? If a couple doesn’t produce a child within, say, two years of the wedding, will they be forced to divorce?
A white person and a black person are not allowed to marry while two white people or two black people are and this is discrimination against people. Two men or two women are not allowed to marry while a man and a woman can and this is discrimination. :dubious:
I almost wanted to vomit listening to a Catholic bishop try to justify going after same-sex marriage instead of divorce. He just went on and on about how divorce is bad and they counseling programs to try and help young couples, yet didn’t say a single word about lobbying legislatures to ban or make divorce harder. Also apparenly in every county that’s legalized SSM the marriage rate as gone down as a result and people are delaying marriage until their 30s. Newsflash Your Excellency that trend started long before before gays started getting married.
Why is this the state’s “vested interest”? Is the state going to start requiring all married couples to have kids now? As far as I know, the state considers (opposite sex) marriage valid whether there are children involved or not, and always has. I honestly don’t understand your interpretation.
The reason you are getting confused by yorick73 is because he thinks being gay is about how you act and not who you are. So by his reasoning you could make a law prohibiting Catholics from marrying Muslims.
First, thanks for being civil. Some people are so quick to call those who disagree with them racists, bigots, etc.
Of course I understand that. Perhaps polygamists don’t choose their lifestyle either but I don’t think marriage should be available to these relationships either. Society has defined marriage throught history as one man and one woman, and marriage is a recognition of this particular union.
What? The ban on same-sex marriage is discrimination against an action, not against people. As I stated earlier gays can get married to members of the opposite sex. Also I, as a straight male, cannot marry another male.
True, I still remember all when the Commonwealth informed my aunt & uncle that their marriage was being disolved for failure to produce children within the official time limit. My aunt was so upset when the judge told her she’d never be able to remarry since she’d passed menopause.
Actually polygamy (or more usually polygyny) has been practiced throughout history by many cultures and is still practiced in many countries even today (much of Islam for instance).
Actually, society often condoned polygamy. Many societies still do. Our society changed, and decided that polygamy was not to be sanctioned. Personally, I’m OK with polygamy, but I understand why most people in the West don’t accept it.
And yes, SSM is something new to this society, mainly because we used to view gays as sick. We know that isn’t so anymore, and so it makes sense to change to reflect that new knowledge. “It’s always been that way” is very poor reason to keep doing something when you look at all the things we’ve changed over the years. Plus, no one is being harmed. We’re not doing some social experiment here-- gays are out and living together openly. All they want is to have the same legal recognition as straight people.
I think that the majority of heterosexuals (and almost all christians) believe that opposite sex marriage should be considered something sacred and exclusive. I certainly believe this. Opening the door for gay marriage (or polygamy, polyandry, etc) cheapens the institution. There are many heteros (myself included) who oppose gay marriage but have no problem with a civil union arrangement of some type that provides all the benefits of marriage without calling it marriage. This is not enough for many gays and it makes me wonder if there is another agenda at work.
[quote]
Agreed.
However, in discussing this briefly with some of my friends, we are all in agreement that we would also support any decision that would get people to STFU about the topic. We are hetero, we are overall indifferent to the topic since it doesn’t affect us. Just do whatever it takes to have it not be an issue.
No, it’s not. No more than segregation was a “just a small step” from equality. Civil unions and such are, just like segregation an attempt to legislate bigotry into law. To stop progress towards equality and force the despised group into a ghetto. Civil unions are an attempt to restrict SS couples to a ghetto version of marriage, and by doing so prevent them from ever getting the real thing. A separate legal institution, which can be progressively be hemmed in, made ever more degraded and limited - without touching real marriage.
Really; we KNOW from history what “separate but equal”*** really ***means.
A ridiculous claim, as has been often pointed out. Infertile couples get married all the time; unmarried people have children. Marriage is NOT about having children.
I don’t have much time, so let me leave aside the arguments countering the miscegenation/racial analogies, which causes many of the pro SSM crowd in this thread to plug their fingers in their ears and pose one simple question: Why is it so strange to you that society might want to recognize with special significance an institution that celebrates the natural coming together of man and woman in a way that best benefits society? Why is it so hard to understand that we might want to recognize the type of union that is responsible for each and every one of us being here?
Okay, that was two questions. But really, I just don’t get it. There certainly are similarities between loving SS and OS couples, but that does not mean they are identical. A cat and a dog are quite similar, but we still have names for each one. Man and woman are largely similar, yet we still acknowledge that there is a difference.
As far as the “tyranny of the majority” argument, is tyranny of the minority better?
I don’t think people who oppose gay marriage are (necessarily) racists or etc. Pretty clear there is one thing they are, though…
But you want civility? Earn it. How on earth is denying basic rights to my friends and family civil? How on earth is claiming that my cousin’s marriage cheapens your marriage civil?
This goes too far. Marriage has been and is largely about having children. There is not a one-to-one relationship, but the two are very tightly associated. Now you may think that it needn’t be that way, but you’re wrong to make the claim you did.
And in what way is people wanting to marry tyranny? This is typical of the Right; they regard being unable to oppress others as oppression. In other words, they define freedom as tyranny; very Orwellian.