Non-emotional argument against Gay Marriage...

reply to post by gncnew


You right I'm sorry. But incest is the limit in my book. I think there should be a limit in yours too.

reply to post by tnhiker


Agreed.

My partner and I have many straight friends that have been in and out of relationships and marriages, cheating on each other, going to strip and swinger clubs...compared to them we are the gay equivalent to the Cleavers.

reply to post by gncnew


Well I guess your point is where do we draw the line?

And I don't know.

I would say that a persons freedoms begin where my freedoms end.
With that being said.
As long as one persons freedoms do not restrict or deny the freedoms of another who cares.

That's a start.

I think your OP was terrific.

For the most part, those against gay marriage aren't against it for the logical reasons you have stated. Whereas they would essentially be redefining what marriage is. They are against GM because they despise homosexuality and they'd rather it remain a tabboo subject and out of sight. It's much easier not to deal with or see something that disgusts you than it is to stare it in the face and accept it's existence.

You make excellent points. If GM is the norm all over the US, what's stopping the union between a man and a dolphin? A woman and her mother? If we're simply focused on the tax breaks and benefits of the union, then there are going to be severe abuses of the system in place. Of course I realize that there's a giant difference between marrying someone of the same sex vs an animal, but I see your point. It is definitely food for thought.

reply to post by grey580


You are right and maybe I was wrong about incest.

Originally posted by gncnew

Ahhhh, now we're getting somewhere.

So if we push the government out of marriage - what else do they not belong in?

This conversation could use GM as a HUGE launch pad...

See, dammit, I said that a few times now...and you don't comment unless someone else says it.
I curse you and cast you into the hell of eternal wooden spoons!

anyhow, government should never be in the business of religious anything...institutions, holy days (holidays), or the like.
Also any moral decisions between consenting adults should be a no go for them...(key being consenting and adult).

Government needs to drop all recognition of marriage...thats a good starting point. this is like regulating what prayers can be said when having your hands crossed...

Originally posted by Annee

Your personal opinion of what is moral or immoral between consenting adults - - - needs to stay in your own "house".

If it affected my - rights - sexual orientation - life and choices - - - I would not be amused.

You can have all the thoughts you want. But you can't deny Equal Rights.

Disagree
I have the right to voice my disagreements with stuff, to point fingers and call things immoral

But that should end there...I don't need nor want the government to enact laws based on my view of what is and isn't moral...your right, equal rights for all adults with no attachments or contingencys.

Btw, I was not serious in saying they are immoral...I frankly have no opinion about homosexual behavior beyond its not my cup of tea..
Funny thing is, you can say your neighbor is immoral because they do things you don't...problem is, the neighbor on the other side is calling you immoral for doing things they don't...if immorality is based on opinions, then anyone even having sex is immoral unless its lights off/for breeding only/not enjoyed...

I certainly don't want to live in a objective moral society...would rather visit hell frankly.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Based on my upbringing, Hell is filled with tons of drugs, sex and Rock N Roll. It could be described as one giant party!
-Who wouldn't want to visit it? Just sayin

Originally posted by gncnew
But if we open the door to redesign the prerequisites for marriage - why do we stop at GM? Why is the marriage between a brother and a sister any different than the marriage between a man and a man? Or a mother and a son different than a woman and a woman?

So instead of an emotional argument you used a logical fallacy to support your position.

There are two components to marriage: religious and legal. If people want a religious ceremony, then they have to abide by whatever type or types of marriage that religious institution sanctions. But not everyone needs, or wants, a religious ceremony.

But everyone, however, must fulfill the legal component of marriage if they wish to be legally recognized as such for financial purposes and others.

The legal component is entirely up to the government to regulate, since it is the government that makes the laws. From a constitutional point of view then, the legal aspect of same-sex marriages, or even marriages between brothers and sisters, or sons and mothers, are not only valid, but protected.

So not allowing these (legal) marriages is an equal protection problem.

Consenting adult homosexuals, brothers and sisters, sons and mothers, must be allowed to legally marry each other if they wish to do so. And the religious institutions, if they don’t want to, are allowed to not marry those people.

But the government can’t, constitutionally, make that discrimination. It’s as simple as that.

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by gncnew

 

So there's your thread - just like all the others.

Equal Rights vs Religious based ideology.

Sanctity of marriage? What a load of _______. Seen the divorced rates lately?

Traditional marriage? You mean woman as property - bought - sold - married off for political stability - etc.

Just Excuses. That is all they are.

Good grief you're doing your best to go out there into rant land.

I'm simply saying that if we legalize GM - then we CANNOT stop there because it's not an option. That's the argument - not about right/wrong - not about sanctity.

Stop trying to make this into some kind of emotional attack.

Originally posted by Stovokor
I just don't understand how my partner and I getting married is going to affect anyone but us.

We have been together since out early twenties..and have remained loving and loyal to each other for over 12 years.

Over the past 12 years both of us have been in the hospital a few times and it was a nightmare trying to get in to stay with each other.

I run my own little business and he is a big wig at a communication company that offers great benefits..but it cost us a fortune for me to be covered..if we were married the price would be cut in half.

we are both non-theist, why should we have to be forced to live under what we consider a made-up religion.

We are great neighbors, active in the community, and do volunteer and charity work.

We pay ALOT of taxes each year and are upstanding members of our community.

Why should we not get full and equal rights under the law?

This is exactly the comment that I asked NOT to get - no one said you shouldn't.

I said that if we do legalize you and your partner's ability to get "married"... there are other unions that we will/must also allow.

Originally posted by Stovokor

Originally posted by gncnew

Originally posted by grey580
Let me ask this question.

How does GM affect you directly?

If government allowed GM I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be affected.
It wouldn't change my mortgage payment.
I wouldn't see the price of gas go up.
My light, water, sewer, phone, etc bill wouldn't change.
Cost of food wouldn't change either.

So what's my personal impact if the government allowed 2 people of the same sex to get married?

0

The personal impact is nil on most civil law issues.

What's the impact if I smoke Marijuana? What's the impact if I snort some coke? What's the impact if I keep my kids out of school?

What's the impact if walk around naked? What's the impact of porno on the TV?

We have all kinds of laws around this stuff.... that's not the point.

I think you should be allowed to do all of those things..it's not the governments role to tell you how to live your life..only if it hurts someone else..then the government should step in..GM hurts no one.

... The point of the thread was very simply to expound on why the debate about GM should - and is for some - way more than some idealistic religious stance or moral high ground.

Here is the big rub though - most of the people "fighting" for GM are not ready for the whole enchilada so-to-speak.

They don't want all government inference out of our civil and social lives, just the ones that impact them.

I'm saying that you can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by monkeyman03
reply to post by gncnew

 

You right I'm sorry. But incest is the limit in my book. I think there should be a limit in yours too.

edit on 24/6/2011 by monkeyman03 because: (no reason given)

I have many personal limits and dogmas that I'm not about to force upon anyone else...

It's an interesting and complicated subject because we've never really had to look into the basis for our civil laws and how they create a sense of order in our society.

Originally posted by grey580
reply to post by gncnew

 

Well I guess your point is where do we draw the line?

And I don't know.

I would say that a persons freedoms begin where my freedoms end.
With that being said.
As long as one persons freedoms do not restrict or deny the freedoms of another who cares.

That's a start.

I can dig that...

Originally posted by aptness

Originally posted by gncnew
But if we open the door to redesign the prerequisites for marriage - why do we stop at GM? Why is the marriage between a brother and a sister any different than the marriage between a man and a man? Or a mother and a son different than a woman and a woman?

So instead of an emotional argument you used a logical fallacy to support your position.

There are two components to marriage: religious and legal. If people want a religious ceremony, then they have to abide by whatever type or types of marriage that religious institution sanctions. But not everyone needs, or wants, a religious ceremony.

But everyone, however, must fulfill the legal component of marriage if they wish to be legally recognized as such for financial purposes and others.

The legal component is entirely up to the government to regulate, since it is the government that makes the laws. From a constitutional point of view then, the legal aspect of same-sex marriages, or even marriages between brothers and sisters, or sons and mothers, are not only valid, but protected.

So not allowing these (legal) marriages is an equal protection problem.

Consenting adult homosexuals, brothers and sisters, sons and mothers, must be allowed to legally marry each other if they wish to do so. And the religious institutions, if they don’t want to, are allowed to not marry those people.

But the government can’t, constitutionally, make that discrimination. It’s as simple as that.

But the government does make that distinction right now...

I'm simply saying that the argument against GM should be on this topic rather than the lunacy of moralities.

So are for simply removing all government oversight of civil matters like this? Do we go the route of the Libertarians?

reply to post by gncnew

The whole GM thing can be so easily solved by just changing the name of it.
Everyone that is in cahoots over GM is because of the title and definition "marriage". Why don't gays band together and come up with an independent title?

Civil unions sounds to much like labor unions and a contract

Domestic partnership takes too long to say and sounds like you need a passport.

Just come up with something new, and the conservative right will shut up. - while you are at it, make it accommodate all transgenders, transsexuals, gays, bis. -

Because if a church doesn't want to marry you I'm sorry but you won't get married. If a church does care to marry you, then I don't even know where the argument is anymore.

Oh, and for the slippery slope argument from the OP.
- Incest marriage isn't going to happen, there will never be a large enough movement to form a positive consensus.
- Inter-species marriage isn't going to happen, sorry but its not consensual if we can't communicate with them. (even though the other day I saw an ATS member confess to wanting to marrying their pet)
- Under age marriage, someone already addressed it, that's a no brainer.

Originally posted by juveous
reply to post by gncnew

 

The whole GM thing can be so easily solved by just changing the name of it.
Everyone that is in cahoots over GM is because of the title and definition "marriage". Why don't gays band together and come up with an independent title?

Civil unions sounds to much like labor unions and a contract

Domestic partnership takes too long to say and sounds like you need a passport.

Just come up with something new, and the conservative right will shut up. - while you are at it, make it accommodate all transgenders, transsexuals, gays, bis. -

Because if a church doesn't want to marry you I'm sorry but you won't get married. If a church does care to marry you, then I don't even know where the argument is anymore.

Oh, and for the slippery slope argument from the OP.
- Incest marriage isn't going to happen, there will never be a large enough movement to form a positive consensus.
- Inter-species marriage isn't going to happen, sorry but its not consensual if we can't communicate with them. (even though the other day I saw an ATS member confess to wanting to marrying their pet)
- Under age marriage, someone already addressed it, that's a no brainer.

That's what is called 'Separate but Equal'.

Originally posted by gncnew
But the government does make that distinction right now...

And does many others distinctions incompatible with the Constitution. But you’re not under the assumption that all laws and policies are constitutional, are you?

I'm simply saying that the argument against GM should be on this topic rather than the lunacy of moralities.

I completely agree, and that’s what I did. I merely pointed out, however, that your argument in support of your opposition to same-sex marriage was a slippery slope, a logical fallacy.

So are for simply removing all government oversight of civil matters like this? Do we go the route of the Libertarians?

What I said was constitutionally the government is not observing people’s right to equal protection by not allowing homosexuals to marry.

I don’t have to approve of people’s personal tastes or preferences to recognize whether the constitution protects those people’s actions, so I limited my post and opinion to the legal aspect of it. Because that’s the only relevant aspect in all this discussion, in my opinion. And the only one that interests me.

Originally posted by juveous
reply to post by gncnew

 

The whole GM thing can be so easily solved by just changing the name of it.
Everyone that is in cahoots over GM is because of the title and definition "marriage". Why don't gays band together and come up with an independent title?

Civil unions sounds to much like labor unions and a contract

The problem is, currently civil unions do not allow for the various legal aspects that marriage allows.
such as, hospitals do not allow civil union partners to visit a dying relative, only spouses and such...also there are insurance and other matters here and there that favor married couples and not union partners...

So, the problem is, there are other names of unions, and none give the bennies that marriage gives...this is inequality because of a religious institution the govermnent is recognizing.

Consider this...if traditionalist marriage folks don't want to currupt their union between man and woman under god, then why don't they change their name from marriage to unions, or partners under god, or whatever...they won't because for one, the benefits package isn't the same as what marriage allows
see the issue yet?


As far as incest, I always found it curious why many states and around the world not only not allow for direct relatives to marry, but even have intercourse (yes, you can end up imprisoned and on the sex offender list if you and your brother/sister knock boots...even if you both are 40 years old and consensual...it is fully legislated morality).

Some may point out potential for birth defects by procreation as an excuse to enforce moral police, however, what about if they are sterile? then its just an argument of "its gross, therefore it needs to be illegal"...

Incest between consenting adults is none of my business, and should they find some preacher to marry them, so be it. I don't necessarily understand it, but meh...again, not my business...same with gay couples, or human/aliens, etc.

The government has a choice...allow full equality in this observed union, or observe none and let the churches sort it out, and give just a basic union between two people for legal sponsorship or whatever...I favor that...push religious institutions back to the rightful place and have goverment step out of this

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by juveous
reply to post by gncnew

 

The whole GM thing can be so easily solved by just changing the name of it.
Everyone that is in cahoots over GM is because of the title and definition "marriage". Why don't gays band together and come up with an independent title?

Civil unions sounds to much like labor unions and a contract

The problem is, currently civil unions do not allow for the various legal aspects that marriage allows.
such as, hospitals do not allow civil union partners to visit a dying relative, only spouses and such...also there are insurance and other matters here and there that favor married couples and not union partners...

So, the problem is, there are other names of unions, and none give the bennies that marriage gives...this is inequality because of a religious institution the govermnent is recognizing.

Consider this...if traditionalist marriage folks don't want to currupt their union between man and woman under god, then why don't they change their name from marriage to unions, or partners under god, or whatever...they won't because for one, the benefits package isn't the same as what marriage allows
see the issue yet?

I don't really understand the equal rights issue because I'm not too aware of the legalities involved with marriage. Also It would make sense for traditionalist marriage to add "under god" to their status, and all other marriages just uphold the equal rights of marriage.

The government has a choice...allow full equality in this observed union, or observe none and let the churches sort it out, and give just a basic union between two people for legal sponsorship or whatever...I favor that...push religious institutions back to the rightful place and have goverment step out of this

But the thing is I don't think the argument is really about equal rights for the opposition, its about the definition and how close it treads on the existing institution. The word "marriage" is claimed by the church, and "gay marriage" is going to cause too much confusion between "what god wants" or whatever.

The government should stay out of it I agree. There are secular marriages, I even think there are satanic marriages. But I still think the main issue is the definition on the large scale.