Gay Marriage

[ICantSpellDawg]

Lets break this down as my main reason to oppose gay marriage.

Example:

2 men are gay. They request that they be allowed to marry one another. The court allows them to because they cannot, for some reason, find a reason not to.

This means that 2 gay males or 2 gay females can marry one another.

lets say that I am 45 and my wife has passed away. I have a few young children and a liver disease. I also have a best friend who is unmarried and loves my kids. We share a house. I want to have all of the government allowences of marriage so that my friend can adopt my kids, recieve my assets after I die and so that we can get the tax break before that happens. We are both heterosexual so it is not allowed (even though the government isn't supposed to be peeking into bedrooms - i'm sure that my best friend and I love each other anyway). Eventually, because that is clearly discrimination based on sexuality (2 men can marry because they are gay, but 2 other men are not afforded those identical rights because they are heterosexual?) my friend and I are allowed to "marry" because it is the logical conclusion.

This opens the way for same sex sybling marriages. Why can't I marry my brother? The obvious and long standing reasons not to allow sybling marriages ("bigotry" and the long repeated statistical birth defects) are gone since we obviously can't reproduce and bigots are herded into corners and berated. As soon as that happens brothers will push to be allowed to marry sisters because it is no longer about reproduction even abstractly.

Now - what is keeping us from allowing polygamy? David Patterson says that he will uphold any marriages recognized by nations or states when people re-locate to New York. Gay rights people are happy about this because it is an attempy to usurp the legislative process in the short term. This decision should include polygamous marriages but i'm sure that it doesn't, even though they are recognized by numerous Nations.

I'm tired of writing, but I could go firther with the polygamous marriage issue until marriage is just a government contract between any number of people without any concrete guidelines.

Long story short - we need to retain the idea that "marriage" is either between 1 man and 1 woman or destroy the institution entirely. There doesn't seem to be another oprion that is anything more than arbitrary.

What do you think?

[rory_20_uk]

To link gay marriage with marrying your sibling is about as logical as linking hetero marriage with molesting small girls.

Polygamy? Fine - why not?

[LittleGrizzly]

lets say that I am 45 and my wife has passed away. I have a few young children and a liver disease. I also have a best friend who is unmarried and loves my kids. We share a house. I want to have all of the government allowences of marriage so that my friend can adopt my kids, recieve my assets after I die and so that we can get the tax break before that happens. We are both heterosexual so it is not allowed (even though the government isn't supposed to be peeking into bedrooms - i'm sure that my best friend and I love each other anyway). Eventually, because that is clearly discrimination based on sexuality (2 men can marry because they are gay, but 2 other men are not afforded those identical rights because they are heterosexual?) my friend and I are allowed to "marry" because it is the logical conclusion.

So you support a male and female best friend getting married just for the benefits and inheritance ect. because allowing straight marriage without allowing this would clearly be discriminaton ?

[PBI]

To link gay marriage with marrying your sibling is about as logical as linking hetero marriage with molesting small girls.

Polygamy? Fine - why not?

Indeed.

I've yet to hear any good argument for why anything which happens between consenting adults and which doesn't harm anyone else is anyone's business but their own.

As rory points out, incest is prevented by independent laws which would be unaffected by allowing gay marriage, so no slippery slope there.

What I really don't understand is why such a minor issue has become so ridiculously blown out of proportion, to the point where it can supposedly decide somthing as important as a presidential election.

[Viking]

So you support a male and female best friend getting married just for the benefits and inheritance ect. because allowing straight marriage without allowing this would clearly be discriminaton ?

[Ronin]

Lets break this down as my main reason to oppose gay marriage.

Example:

2 men are gay. They request that they be allowed to marry one another. The court allows them to because they cannot, for some reason, find a reason not to.

This means that 2 gay males or 2 gay females can marry one another.

right...

lets say that I am 45 and my wife has passed away. I have a few young children and a liver disease. I also have a best friend who is unmarried and loves my kids. We share a house. I want to have all of the government allowences of marriage so that my friend can adopt my kids, recieve my assets after I die and so that we can get the tax break before that happens. We are both heterosexual so it is not allowed (even though the government isn't supposed to be peeking into bedrooms - i'm sure that my best friend and I love each other anyway). Eventually, because that is clearly discrimination based on sexuality (2 men can marry because they are gay, but 2 other men are not afforded those identical rights because they are heterosexual?) my friend and I are allowed to "marry" because it is the logical conclusion.

right once again...

This opens the way for same sex sybling marriages. Why can't I marry my brother? The obvious and long standing reasons not to allow sybling marriages ("bigotry" and the long repeated statistical birth defects) are gone since we obviously can't reproduce and bigots are herded into corners and berated. As soon as that happens brothers will push to be allowed to marry sisters because it is no longer about reproduction even abstractly.

why "we obviously can't reproduce"? why are you taking that out of the equation?

Society´s reason to encourage marriage is to stimulate the creation of stable families and encourage regeneration of the population.
Of course it´s a given that homosexual couples can´t reproduce, so they can´t help regenerate the population, but they wouldn´t anyway, but at the very least you provide some stability for that couple in terms of taking care of each other in old age and such....so that´s still a plus for society.
for siblings marrying each other cause a definite disadvantage to society as they increase the rise of number of children being born with defects.

Now - what is keeping us from allowing polygamy? David Patterson says that he will uphold any marriages recognized by nations or states when people re-locate to New York. Gay rights people are happy about this because it is an attempy to usurp the legislative process in the short term. This decision should include polygamous marriages but i'm sure that it doesn't, even though they are recognized by numerous Nations.

uhm...there is no reason for not allowing it...as long as it is accepted by all parties involved what´s the problem?

I'm tired of writing, but I could go firther with the polygamous marriage issue until marriage is just a government contract between any number of people without any concrete guidelines.

the obvious guideline is if the society as a whole is harmed by the existence of these contracts or not....

Long story short - we need to retain the idea that "marriage" is either between 1 man and 1 woman or destroy the institution entirely.

we have people working on that

There doesn't seem to be another oprion that is anything more than arbitrary.

What do you think?

marriage, even the classic one between 1 man and 1 woman is a societal construct...and therefore arbitrary anyway....that´s what I think.

[Fragony]

Shouldn't be called marriage, that is between a man and a woman. Registered partnership with all the tax breaks sounds fine to me, if they want then that more I have to wonder why.

[rory_20_uk]

Shouldn't be called marriage, that is between a man and a woman. Registered partnership with all the tax breaks sounds fine to me, if they want then that more I have to wonder why.

So you say. Who made you lord of all? If two people want to say they are married, twinned souls or entangled particles then good luck to them!

[PBI]

If the debate is really just about what we call the thing then this is even more of a storm in a teacup than I realised.

[rory_20_uk]

If the debate is really just about what we call the thing then this is even more of a storm in a teacup than I realised.

Isn't it always? The strongest against it must look longingly back 500 years when the argument was based around "well I'm not the one covered in pitch being burnt alive".

As there's nothing that one can say is wrong with what is being discussed then it has to either be that it will inextricably lead to the fall of civilisation, or it is clearly wrong for reasons that can't quite be defined.

[Fragony]

So you say. Who made you lord of all? If two people want to say they are married, twinned souls or entangled particles then good luck to them!

Out of respect for people who see marriage as a man/woman thing, which it is, gays shouldn't want to call it marriage. That's intrusive and pushy.

[ICantSpellDawg]

why "we obviously can't reproduce"? why are you taking that out of the equation?

Marriage no longer means reproduction or the support of the child by the state. The state has enacted other laws that do just that which undermined the status of marriage long ago. Gay marriage would finally decide that "marriage" has nothing to do with reproduction, which has been in limbo since people started having infecund heterosexual marriages. If not about reproduction, then what is it about? A metaphysical concept? Leave that to churches because the water will get very cloudy.

Society´s reason to encourage marriage is to stimulate the creation of stable families and encourage regeneration of the population.
Of course it´s a given that homosexual couples can´t reproduce, so they can´t help regenerate the population, but they wouldn´t anyway, but at the very least you provide some stability for that couple in terms of taking care of each other in old age and such....so that´s still a plus for society.
for siblings marrying each other cause a definite disadvantage to society as they increase the rise of number of children being born with defects.

How would 2 brothers marrying be a "definite disadvantage to society?". What if a brother and sister wanted to adopt or they were infertile? What is the barrier there?

I know that there are "different laws" regulating the two ideas, but it is naive to suggest that they aren't absolutely connected from one another through a similar constitutional process. Again - the modern mudus operandi is not "Why?" but "Why Not?"

As an aside, this isn't an issue of what people can call themselves, one another or feel - that is not affected by the governmental interpretation. What is affected is of concern to us all as it is a civil matter and one based on taxable assets and government responsibility, to which we are all actively party.

[Craterus]

Let them eat cake.

[Viking]

Out of respect for people who see marriage as a man/woman thing, which it is, gays shouldn't want to call it marriage. That's intrusive and pushy.

So I guess that the catholics, mormons, protestants and what Christian sub-religion not shoud agree to not call a church a church.

[PBI]

the modern mudus operandi is not "Why?" but "Why Not?"

Or how about "Why care?"

[Fragony]

Or how about "Why care?"

A lot of people care, so their sexual preference is more important then that? If it's all the same to them why want it. That's demanding respect without giving any.

[PBI]

Gay people seeking to wed have a reason to care about this.

Nobody else is affected by it. So why care?

[Ronin]

How would 2 brothers marrying be a "definite disadvantage to society?". What if a brother and sister wanted to adopt or they were infertile? What is the barrier there?

There would be no disadvantage there...

but what are you suggesting here? that we should perform medical tests on everyone before deciding what laws apply to each person?

that doesn´t seem very reasonable..or practical...sometimes a rule of thumb is necessary.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Gay people seeking to wed have a reason to care about this.

Nobody else is affected by it. So why care?

That is faulty. Why does it matter what happens in Alaska to anyone who doesn't live there? Why shouldn't we drill in wildlife preserves up there?

This is a climate of carelessness. Carelessness is used way too much in our society to defend issues when a legitimate defence is in short supply. I hear the same thing about abortion. "It isn't your body (as a male) so you should have no say" or "why do you care". We were all unborn infants at one point - so it is my concern.

This is our government system and marriage has recieved special aknowledgment and tax assurances, so it is important to understand why that is, who qualifies, why they qualify, etc. It concerns us all - that is why it is a governement classification. It is, however, not my concern what 2, 5, etc. homosexuals call themselves when my government isn't involved.

that doesn´t seem very reasonable..or practical...sometimes a rule of thumb is necessary.

What rule of thumb would you suggest?

[Fragony]

Gay people seeking to wed have a reason to care about this.

Nobody else is affected by it. So why care?

It annoys me that they find their sexual preference more important then the perception of billions of people on marriage. Mutual respect huh.

[Ronin]

Out of respect for people who see marriage as a man/woman thing, which it is, gays shouldn't want to call it marriage. That's intrusive and pushy.

why? because it´s their religion?...that´s a non sequitur......by that logic the catholic church would have be abolished because I don´t agree with it...they´re being "pushy" with their beliefs towards me.

really religious people don´t want to get into "I´m rubber and you´re glue" territory with who's pushy...they´re not gonna come out looking good out of it.

[HoreTore]

Fortunately, as we recently allowed gay marriage in this country, people opposing gay marriage are largely ignored

[ICantSpellDawg]

why? because it´s their religion?...that´s a non sequitur......by that logic the catholic church would have be abolished because I don´t agree with it...they´re being "pushy" with their beliefs towards me.

really religious people don´t want to get into "I´m rubber and you´re glue" territory with who's pushy...they´re not gonna come out looking good out of it.

Frag isn't a really religious guy, so what does your statment mean in response to him?

Fortunately, as we recently allowed gay marriage in this country, people opposing gay marriage are largely ignored

We all know where Horetore stands on disenfranchising those who disagree. Were your laws decides through legislation or where they court made? If they were court made because the majority disagreed... congratulations on disenfranchising the dissenting majority!

[Ronin]

What rule of thumb would you suggest?

the one I suggested above.....

marriage between siblings poses possible disadvantages to society because of the high possibility of the birth of defective children....so it should not be allowed.......yes if they are sterile the problem is not posed...but should the law reflect that? I don´t think instituting medical tests before allowing a marriage or not is practical.

[PBI]

That is faulty. Why does it matter what happens in Alaska to anyone who doesn't live there? Why shouldn't we drill in wildlife preserves up there?

This is a climate of carelessness. Carelessness is used way too much in our society to defend issues when a legitimate defence is in short supply. I hear the same thing about abortion. "It isn't your body (as a male) so you should have no say" or "why do you care". We were all unborn infants at one point - so it is my concern.

I am not saying we should not care about anything. I am simply saying we should not care about things which harm no one and do not affect us.

Drilling in Alaska is a question of environmental vs economic interests, which I suppose is a question of how we should use collective resources. Biodiversity and economic growth both most definitely affect us, therefore we should care.

Abortion is a question of human rights. It is weighing the rights of the unborn infant against the rights of the mother. Either way someone will be harmed, it is a matter of deciding which is the greater harm. Therefore we should care.

Gay marriage in the form most people seem to object to is a question of mere semantics. It does not affect us and we should not care about it, any more than we should care about what colour car the president of Mexico drives.

This is our government system and marriage has recieved special aknowledgment and tax assurances, so it is important to understand why that is, who qualifies, why they qualify, etc. It concerns us all - that is why it is a governement classification. It is, however, not my concern what 2, 5, etc. homosexuals call themselves when my government isn't involved.

So is this really just a question of tax policy? I must say I find it hard to believe that that is what has got so many people so upset.

In the UK we have the concept of civil partnerships, which can be entered into by anyone and which confer all the legal status of a marriage, however it is not actually called a marriage. Strangely, this was a relatively uncontroversial measure to bring in, compared to actually allowing gay people to marry.

[ICantSpellDawg]

the one I suggested above.....

marriage between siblings poses possible disadvantages to society because of the high possibility of the birth of defective children....so it should not be allowed.......yes if they are sterile the problem is not posed...but should the law reflect that? I don´t think instituting medical tests before allowing a marriage or not is practical.

But i'm saying that if homosexual marriages were allowed then that that rule would not apply to 2 brothers. Am I missing something?


This issue is about quite a few things and should be decided logically and through the legislative process. It is about parameters in marriage and the governments interest in marriage in general. This is not something to be tossed to the side. Marriage is socially important, so destabling the definition should be treated responsibly.

I am of the mind that people would be better served by a dissolution of civil marriage as a whole. Leave metaphysical recognition to the churches. Otherwise leave marriage the way it is in general doing only minor adjustments.

[Fragony]

Frag isn't a really religious guy, so what does your statment mean in response to him?

Frag isn't religious at all, got protestant roots but that's it, but many people are. When gays wanted to hold a gay parade in Jeruzalem the why-not guys were also why-notting, I am more like why do. You know a lot of people care about that and that they are going to be upset, same with marriage. It's important to millions of people but they don't care, how egocentric can you be? I think they want people to be upset.

[HoreTore]

We all know where Horetore stands on disenfranchising those who disagree. Were your laws decides through legislation or where they court made? If they were court made because the majority disagreed... congratulations on disenfranchising the dissenting majority!

Only politicians make laws in this country, and they made it with a huge majority. So yeah, we've succeeded in disenfranchising the vocal minority consisting of dolts and people who point to old books. And I'm proud of that.

[Fragony]

Only politicians make laws in this country, and they made it with a huge majority.

Only because of the pc-tyranny where nobody dares speaking against it. If you are against gay marriage your are of course really repressing your own homosexual feelings.

[HoreTore]

Only because of the pc-tyranny where nobody dares speaking against it. If you are against gay marriage your are of course really repressing your own homosexual feelings.

How is life on your planet anyway, Fragony?

Plenty of people speak against it, but the vast majority are for it. But hey, if you like your bubble, I don't mind you living in it...