Sorry for my part in that. I tried to answer the original question from my own viewpoint but shouldn’t have let myself get sucked into the (mostly the same as always) endless debating.
turtlescanfly, you made the best post in the whole thread when you brought up the point that you might as well side with the pro-gay people because those who argue against it are… (choosing my words carefully here)… ok there’s no kind way to say it, so I won’t. But you called it. You should support gay marriage because even a cursory glance at the anti-marriage side shows how ridiculous they are, and why stay neutral if one side is so obviously wrong?
I’m not sure how we got on the subject of religious holidays and why marriage is a thing, but I think “Because it’s morally wrong to stay neutral when others are being disenfranchised” is a good answer to your question that first requires that we establish that people are, in fact, having their rights withheld from them.
Beyond that, the best argument I could make is that it might, someday, affect you. You’re a straight, divorced male. That’s fine. But is there anyone in your life such as a friend or a relative who you care about who is gay? If not, can you guarantee that there never will be? If you ever have children, can you guarantee that none of them will be gay? If you can’t make those guarantees, then you should support gay marriage for two reasons:
-
Supporting gay marriage does no harm to anyone.
-
Opposing gay marriage MAY cause harm to someone you care about.
Excluded middle, false dilemma.
Those are both wrong, Melchior. He’s not offering 1 and 2 as options. They are separate statements, so there is no middle to exclude. Of course you could explain how some harm could be caused by gay marriage - I guess that’s the middle you believe is being excluded - but for that to work there would have to be harm, and we all know there’s none. That’s why so much space has been devoted to tradition and the dictionary definition of marriage. This is an argument about words, and you have to be a pretty hard-core bigot these days to believe that being raised by a gay couple is in itself harmful to children.
nm
I have no idea how those apply. But I’m kinda slow. Would you kindly explain precisely what middle is being excluded and where the false dilemma arises in deryk’s post? Thanks!
The Oppressed always win.
And after the oppressed win, it the oppressor’s children and grandchildren that have to bare the burden of guilt for what their forefathers did.
No they wouldn’t. Someone would simply name their survivor. Just like they do in wills anyway.
Sure they are. You simply name who you want to make such decisions. In the absence of that, parents or children do it.
Same thing - you simply name a beneficiary in SS documents or a will or whatever.
Marriage is an easy, convenient way to do all these things automatically, of course. That’s one reason I’m married, and why I think couples who don’t marry aren’t very smart to take advantage of this. But it still doesn’t explain why it means anything to the state.
What is this supposed to mean?
I care however, not in the correct way. If your countrymen accept gay marriage, the next thing will be adoption by gays.
Its always the same, “minority” “oppressed” “by intolerance people” like I heard from muslims…
Gays can already adopt. They just can’t do it as a couple; the legal parent is one partner or the other. I guess the world is doomed.
There already is adoption by gays. There are lots and lots of gay families with kids in the US.
We already have adoption by gays. What’s wrong with that?
Gays also have children through artificial insemination and through other heterosexual relationships.
Yes, Muslims can also be victims of oppression and intolerance. And?
They simply name the survivor - the person intended to get the money when you die. Just like in a will. Not need to marry that person. The state can handle that just fine, and often does.
And I still don’t see why that’s relevant. With the exception of tax benefits, pretty much everything that marriage does can be done through a collection of legal paperwork.
I agree completely. I’m not the one saying we should. But others seem to be.
That’s what I’m saying.
(Again, I support gay marriage. And straight marriage.)
I hesitate to ask…but given your apparent dismissal of any social value to the institution of marriage, and your apparent dismissal of marriage as simply a shorthand way of obtaining legal rights and protections that can be obtained in other ways…why?
Why do *you *support marriage at all?
Unless I’ve really missed something, SS survivor benefits can only be paid to your spouse, children or parents (if they were your dependents). I’ve never heard a way of naming any other beneficiary.