The emotional argument that gay marriage is wrong for society has been proven to be empty. Massachusetts has had legal same-sex marriage for a couple of years now and the sky has not fallen. Children of same sex couples are just as happy and healthy as children with a mom and dad...better off than single-parent children. It's tough to make a logical argument that marginalizing a large population of our country is a healthy social encironment. What message does that send to our children?

 

The only reason we are making such a big deal about this issue is all these damn religious nuts running around. Damn conservative religious republicans!

 

Matter - Life - Mind

We are experiencing the ongoing ascendancy of the human mind. This is not esoteric philosophical mumbo-jumbo. Human rights, sexual equality, and abolition are examples of cultural acknowledgment that minds are more important than bodies.

The issue of gay marriage is simply another example of this ongoing ascendancy. Each of the examples above were (and still are) met with similar forms of resistance we see to gay marriage.

Gender, age, and race will ultimately play no roll in rearing of children. Human minds raise human minds.

 

If marriage is so sacred, why are the anti-gay marriage wonks not fighting just as hard to outlaw divorce?

 

I'm pretty much the same way about gay marriage, but for different reasons and with different caveats.

First of all, "gay marriage" is a misleading term, since "marriage" is a religious institution that was co-opted by government for the purpose of taxes, benefits, legal situations, etc. (Whatever happened to separation of church and state, eh?) Government should stay out of the religious institution of marriage. In that context, the gov't has no right telling anyone who can marry who.

If the gov't wants to create a secular, social contract for the purposes of taxes, benefits, etc, and allow gay versions of that, then that's fine. On top of that, if gays can find a church that will marry them in a religious ceremony, then fine...but if they can't find a church to marry them, no lawsuits allowed. It's wrong (not to mention unconstitutional) to force a religion to go against its tenets and ideals just because someone outside the religion doesn't like them.

So, I'm against "gay marriage" but not against "gay social contracts" (secular "marriage").

 

Marriage is about love; if a gay couple love eachother, they should be allowed to marry. It's as simple as that.

 

Some suggest gay marriage will merely undermine one of our most fundamental societal institutions, causing countless straight couples to get divorced because exclusion of gays was the only thing holding their marriage together.

But we know better. Gay marriage killed the dinosaurs. If we let liberal activist judges in Massachusetts and California set the course, the blood will run in rivers. Mixed with molten lava.


Top ten reasons to make gay marriage illegal

01.) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02.) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03.) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04.) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05.) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06.) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07.) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08.) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09.) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10.) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Stop it before its too late.

----------

You get it?

Homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, transsexual.

We're all people and deserve basic rights.

 

The 14th amendment of the Constitution asserts that:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

 

The whole point of marriage is to be monogamous. How can that in any way lead to the spread of sexually transmitted diseases? Get your facts straight.

 

honestly who cares - if people want to be together so be it.

it isn't like marriage is some high holy thing - we sell it on tv, in drive throughs, etc. and that is fake love.

If people really want to be together then who are you to tell them no. If you don't like what they do, don't be their friend.

plus what will you do when you kids are gay?

 

So why is it okay that we've lost our First Amendment rights? Remember the First Amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" Any argument against gay marriage based on religion violates our rights. Not just gay people, but ALL of us. "The Bible says..." Whose Bible? What Religion? Since when do we as a nation have a national religion. According to the constitution, I have the right to exercise my choice of religion and supposedly "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of (one) religion", consequently making my choice mute. Isn't that exactly what is happening by denying same sex couples the right to marry based on what the Bible says? There are over 400 religions in the world. Christianity is less than 20% of religious followers. Is it the Bible of Christianity that the opposition holds on so tightly to? I strongly feel any religious argument is a WEAK argument. Have you even read that Bible? The one that says that your wife is your property! Nice.

 

Oh, for the love of... You do realize that you cannot treat a same-sex couple the same as a different-sex couple, right? I mean, even with different-sex couples, the rules of the law are filled with gray areas on who gets what and who gets the children and all those other things that follow a divorce.
Obviously, there need to be new rules for the gay marriage, especially considering alimony and the responsibility of the children. Because, newsflash!, there won't be traditional mother- and father-roles within the marriage, and therefore, traditional rules won't apply.

Yes, this supports the argument that a gay marriage isn't traditional, but I was never one for traditions anyway. Yes, you have just as much right to be against gay marriage as anybodt else, but please, think outside of the heterosexual box before spouting your arguments.

 

This is not a commonly known fact - Can you point me to a reference?
Or do you mean that gay _sex_ is helping spread AIDS? In which case gay marriage may help reduce the problem.

 

Gay marriage does not spread AIDS unprotected sex does

 

"All laws are derived from your moral beliefs."

No. That's not true. They're derived in congress. Sometimes based on personal moral beliefs, sometimes based on other's moral beliefs, sometimes based on completely other reasons.

"I cannot agree with Gay marriage because I believe in right and
wrong, and that homosexuality is wrong."

I cannot agree with people with red hair because I believe in right and wrong, and people with red hair are wrong.

 

"A terrible fact-
Gay marriage is helping spread the AIDs virus "

That is a terrible fact. Mainly because it's not a fact!

It's as valid as an argument as me saying: This is a terrible fact: sabrejimmy is the cause of childhood lukemia.

 

"The bible states it "

And the bible has what to do with the American Legal system and the constitution?

 

surely a marriage promotoes monogamy therefore any diseases wouldn't spread further than the two people within the marriage.

aside from that it's very obvious that AIDS isn't the gay disease just like it isn't the black disease in Africa.

Following on from that I think there is a whole other deabte on the origins of the aids virus and the likely hood that it was a lab creation rather than a natural mutation occurance.

 

It shouldnt be called Marriage for either parties, that is a religious term, let's seperate church and state THANKS!

 

Your citation?

Unfounded statements are never a good argument in the place of justifiable facts.

A terrible fact-
You haven't proven that, or shown us someone who has.

 

"Actually there the American legal system is filled with Biblical
principles and truthes and ...
The Supreme Court Building even has a Bible verse written on it"

What is a biblical truthes?

 

Stay out of other peoples business!

It’s that simple.

Gay people want to get married. Let them get married.
How is it hurting you?
If it's doing no harm to anyone how is it bad?

Morally incorrect? I say that forcing YOUR moral opinion of gay marriage being immoral is immoral in itself.

Gay people getting married doesn’t effect your financial well being, your physical well being or YOUR pursuit of happiness. So how can it be immoral?

And im not gay (Not that it matters)

 

I'm Christian and I do believe homosexuality is a sin.

HOWEVER, I don't think banning gay marriage is going to stop people form being gay. We Christians need to be focusing our energy on more important matters, like keeping straight marriages together! You want marriage to be more sacred: outlaw divorce! Straight people would take it way more seriously then.

 

EVERYONE, regardless of sexual orientation, has the right to be miserable. I say let gay people know the joys of divorce, splitting of assets, custody, alimony, child support, the whole nine yards! In fact, make civil unions illegal; it makes it too easy to "walk away" from a relationship and encourages roomates to be "couples" to help a buddy out with benefits.Civil Unions, gone, Gay marraige, IN!

 

America had some rules in place when it made its laws. We separated federal and state governments, which protected civil liberties. We also decided to seperate church and state, which is why churches are special organizations and most laws don't apply to them. So, your religious arguments are valid and welcomed here, everyone, but please know that they can only stand on their own legs. Don't support them with legal jargon. Most of you have been doing just fine with religion so far but some of your arguments seem a little vague. Let me point these problems out...

I would absolutely love to read the passage where the Bible says gays can't get married; where it is against God's will. Unfortunately, I can't because I wouldn't know which version of the Bible to read for it has been reprinted, translated and quite possibly re-written over 200 times!

Most of the other arguments against are a little loaded too. Gay marriage increaes AIDS infection rates. Ok. But then, why is AIDS infecting straight people too? Gay marriage will lead to legal prostitution, legalize pedophilia and beastiality. How? No one has yet to tell us this!

I am not religious. I will offer that up and you can attack me on this all you want. I am agnostic, for reference reasons. I am spiritual. I believe there is a reason science can't explain for the existence and the reason behind many, many things in this world. I believe that marriage is about love. Unfortunately, just like the definition of love, heterosexuals are already perverting the definition and, quite possibly, the sanctity of marriage that Pres. Bush is now on some warpath to protect. Divorce rates are rising faster and faster and marriages are decreasing in duration; the shortest being 55 hours!

People, in order to debate effectively we must speak rationally. I've done that. Now someone, sit before your computer, take a deep breath, read my arguments and give me a counterpoint and answers to my questions that are not influenced by extreme emotion or pressure of any kind. Thank you.

 

According to which religion?

Who defined marriage? And why do those old definitions hold precedence over the common decency of our modern lives?

Marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman. In fact, if you want to get down to brass tacks, marriage is actually defined as between a man and SEVERAL women. Just as I don't agree with polygamy, I don't believe excluding people from having legal rights and protections is neither moral, nor righteous.

If two people love each other, it should be more than enough for them to dedicate their lives to one another, regardless of whether they're white, black, gay, bi, retarded, disabled, or geniuses. Offering anything other than that is simply DISCRIMINATION.

 

Maybe your notions of right and wrong are incorrect? I happen to believe discrimination and exclusion are wrong.

The old saying goes, be free to dance as wildly as you want to, but your rights end where the ends of your fingers touch the tip of my nose. In that sense, I don't believe it's right to discriminate against someone based on my own personal beliefs. In other words, if someone wants to marry their own sex, it's really his/her own business and has nothing to do with me.

Gay Marriage may not be morally right. Hell, it may not be my personal choice to even like gays. But they certainly have the right to the same protections as the rest of us. Giving them anything else is as morally wrong as racism or sexism.

 

WTF?

Since when does being in a healthy, monogamous relationship cause a spread of the HIV virus? Clearly, you have no basis to stand on in making such an outlandish assumption.

I'm sure you could provide a link to a credible scientific study that proves your misguided thesis, right?

 

Define human nature.

Your nature might be entirely different from someone else's.

The TRUTH is that religion is no longer a relevant guide for living. It has reduced itself to a club, used for the persecution of those who harbor different cultural attitudes. Religion is nothing more than a shawl you can put on to hide your face while you hang black men off trees, beat gay people in the streets, and deny women their due as equals.

 

In addition to the previous points, letting gays have a "civil union" sounds good on paper but is not feasible in real life. Creating a separate union for gays would make them second class citizens. As seen with the "Separate But Equal" laws in the past, it just does not work.

 

In addition to the previous points, letting gays have a "civil
union" sounds good on paper but is not feasible in real life.
Creating a separate union for gays would make them second class
citizens. As seen with the "Separate But Equal" laws in the
past, it just does not work.

 

Would you care to cite your source where a peer-reviewed published experiment was conducted that found gay marriage to help spread the AIDs virus? I would like to see where you get your "fact."

 

How in the world does anyone have the right to refuse the legal rights associated with marriage to any two consenting adults who love one another enough to commit to a lifetime together?

 

"Against human nature"--I assume you mean that because two men or two women love each other but do not have the ability to reproduce, then they are going against the nature to reproduce and therefore should not be allowed to marry. What about a heterosexual couple who is unable to bear children? They're going to live together and have sex without reproducing! Isn't that detrimental to our human species and nature??? Please.

Why can't religion be excluded from the argument? I thought we had something called separation of church and state? No? Did that get conveniently brushed to the side? Are we all forgetting that the first European immigrants to come to this country left England so that they would have FREEDOM OF RELIGION??

 

The "who gives a crap" button was your browser's back button. No one said you had to read this or vote on this or post a comment. It always baffles me to see people take the time to post a comment to say they don't care and everyone should stop talking about it. And another thing... people who post comments like mine make me sick.

 

Three of your links are from right wing/conservative groups. Especially against gay marriage. They are extremely biased. I did not even have to go to the sites to know that.

Those three are #2,#3, and #5 on your list.

#2 is a polling company, if I recall and 'try' to write intelligently, but don't have research behind their writings.

#1 has no real barring on the argument at hand.

 

If your against gay marriage, THEN DONT GET ONE!!!

 

Arguing against gay marriage on the grounds that it goes against the definition of marriage is a bit of a red herring.

What this argument fails to understand is that marriage (and its definition) is a constantly evolving institution. The ease of divorce in the modern world testifies to a sort of redefinition of marriage. So to say that "gay marriage goes against the concept of marriage", as is frequently argued, really means "we should not redefine marriage to allow gay marriage."

Now, that may be a conclusion of an argument, or an opinion, but it is not a valid premise or reason for arguing that the right to marry should be granted to homosexuals. To make this point, one would have to argue *why* marriage should not be so redefined. I think the only reasons to not redefine marriage to admit of gay marriages are conservative religious arguments. They will only convince people who are already convinced by (or part of) that religious tradition--they make no appeal to commonly held principles of justice.

 

"From a religious standpoint gay marriage isn't even possible?" Whose religion, exactly? Perhaps your denomination of your religion won't perform gay weddings, but you presume to state that it isn't possible for ANY religion to perform them? That's quite a claim to make, considering there's an Episcopal gay bishop.

 

I feel your fact is counter-intuitive:

A benefit to heterosexual society of gay marriage is the fact that the commitment of a marriage means the participants are discouraged from promiscous sex. This has the advantage of slowing the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, which know no sexual orientation and are equal opportunity destroyers.

 

Haven't we only just realized that slavery, and the caste system is wrong? Weren't these supported by the same laws that have evolved with us for hundreds of years?

If they were wrong (I assume you agree) what else is?

My main point is that just because it has been around for a while doesn't mean it is accurate: people in the past have believed that the world was flat, the earth was the center of the universe, and a host of other issues that are now wrong.

What else are we wrong about now?

 

Of course it matters where the "facts" come from. Everyone can skew a statistic in one's favor if they feel that it would benefit their end cause.

On another note, I disagree with the bible and I think it is inaccurate and wrong. But many people don't. Who is right?
There is no undeniable truth that gays are the cause of Aids or spreading.

I can find a statistic that says the exact opposite if I so chosed, but it would just be as biased as your sources.

 

The polygamy argument is, in fact, crap.

If three (or more) people want to willingly and knowingly enter in to a multi-marriage, what is the harm?

And how will that, or gay marriage, "destroy" the idea of marriage? If the institution of marriage can survive Michael Jackson, Liz Taylor, and K-Fed, Bob and Steve (or Bob, Steve, and Alice) getting married won't make a dent.

 

Erm... If government and marriage didn't mix, you couldn't get married by a judge. (Hell, in many European countries, a church marriage doesn't legally count if you don't have the civil marriage certificate to go with it.)

 

Unfortunately, though, marriage has become an institution both under religion and under the government. It's all well and good for churches to say it's only for a man and a woman in my opinion--that's a belief central to their faith, and they're not a public organization which is beholden not to discriminate against anyone based on religious tenants. There it is, though. The government can't provide a service for specifically religious reasons. Thus, marriage is completely devoid of any religious meanings when it's performed by the government. Otherwise why can atheists marry? So it doesn't really matter where marriade originates, because by law the bible can't play a part in legal marriage; the institution has split off from its source to become something far less...narrowminded.

 

Except that marraige has changed before. Used to be no interfaith or interracial marraiges. Our society is willing to set limits where limits should be. Unfortunately, at the moment, there's no real reason for limiting it to straight couples beyond religious ones. The other reasons seem to rely on the fact that "this is the way it's always been, and nothing has ever or should ever change." But that's wrong. So many, many things have changed, and it hasn't brought us to the precipice of destruction yet. Hell, someday I'm sure people will be taking polygamy in marriage seriously. I'm not sure why it shouldn't be. It's not my thing, but if 3 people really do love eachother to the point where each one would want to marry the other, than who are we to say they have to choose? Who are we to ruin a relationship just so we can keep the supposed "sanctity" of an institution overrun with the decay of non-loving marriages. Whether for money, for social standing, or for the hell of it, people get married with people they don't love all the time.

Is that really a better condition for marriage just because it involves 2 people, or a man and a woman?

 

Yes.. Because sites with names like "biblebelievers" and "traditionalvalues" don't have some sort of agenda to push.

How about quoting some stats from WHO or the CDC or (God forbid) FLAG or other gay rights groups. I think they'd be interested in tagging and stopping behavior that's killing them off in droves as you "evidence" seems to suggest.

 

Where is it that you find your moral beliefs?

And why should your moral beliefs have to be the same as mine or Joe Shmoe's down the street?

The minority in all of this shouldn't be drown out because the majority feels it isn't 'moral' if that means that my boyfriend and I want to be treated differently, then so be it. Sometimes different is 'morally' the right thing.

We are the only country on the planet that has the government setup we enjoy, and yet we still embrace archaic laws, built from old religious traditions, not only gay marriage but a whole slew of other laws thought to be socially backwards.

C'mon its time to grow up.

 

religion has no influence in my life and just because the bible said so is not good enough. Not to mention, that there aren't droves of gay people. The argument that everyone will turn gay is false. We still reproduce at an alarming rate and the fact that a few people turn gay is not a detrimental effect on the human race. Let them show their love!

 

Stable monogamous relationships are the building blocks of society.

If gay people want to be gay with eachother within the institution of marriage, so much the better.

The only reason people reject this notion is that it is 'competing' with straight marriage. (No, they tend to different audiences, and well.. competition is an incentive to shape up, right? it's not like straight marriage is setting new performance records year by year).

The whole issue here, is that certain people have an issue with people being gay.

And that debate also settled on "No, BEING gay isn't wrong", thus the act of gay marriage for gay people should also be considered a net win for society, and in no occurrences a wrong thing.

 

Show some facts that heterosexuals aren't spreading AIDS. Show some facts that blood transfusions didn't transmit AIDS to children. You don't have to be gay to have AIDS.

 

if without religion then we are lost then why am i not lost?

also religion is not there to act as guidelines to what is right and what is wrong. that is what morals are for. and no morals are not derived from religion. i have morals and am not religious, and so do many others.

also can't the definiton of marrige, as many definitions and words have, change. marrige used to be, and was for most of its time, a way to gain power. you married for that reason and had a mistress for love. so the definition has already changed. cant it change further?

 

The right to marriage certainly is a civil right. Just because someone is gay does not mean in any way that they will always be talking loudly and acting flamboyantly. Your stereotypes about gay people are not valid evidence in any way. It seems rather obvious that your statement comes for your religious beliefs because of your statement that gay people are soulless. You also associate homosexuality with a lack of intelligence which is absolutely ridiculous. Someone could easily associate that with a certain beliefs, like Christian fundamentalism. They don't because Christianity is more accepted. If it wasn't we could be arguing the right of Christians to marry right now. I hope that soon America will realize that a right like marriage can't be denied because of any skin color, or sexual orientation, neither of which you can choose. It took black people in this country a long time to be accept and treated respectfully. Being black isn't a choice just like homosexuality isn't a choice. Gay people deserve the same rights as everyone else does.

 

This idea is essentially playing with semantics. Most people who are against gay marriages are really against gays, so calling it a "civil union" might shut their mouth, but will still not satisfy them. Furthermore, the effects on society are bound to be minimal on an overpopulated Earth where global warming will drastically reduce the already overtaxed ability of Nature to feed us.
And if "undermining the assumptions of law that has developed over hundreds of years" is really an issue, than law should never change. We should revert back to tribes & slavery - why challenge any assumption?

 

Every “against” argument should start by acknowledging the existence of gay couples with children. There are hundreds of thousands of families with young children where the parents are gay partners who are not permitted to legally marry. This disadvantage puts those children at risk. They are not entitled to the same legal and financial protections as other children, nor are their parents held to the same high legal standards as married straight people.

Most people agree that marriage is important for the well-being of children. In general, children of unmarried parents have less stable lives, both emotionally and financially. But anti-gay-marriage advocates are willing to sacrifice those children simply to avoid the perceived negative consequences of recognizing a legally and morally binding relationship between two people of the same sex. At the same time, I'll bet most of those same people would scream bloody murder if a straight couple *chose* not to do the same thing a gay couple isn't *allowed* to do!

Please do not respond to this with some nonsense about not “allowing” gay people to have children, or taking children away from gay parents. Gay people *have* children – that's all there is to it. To talk about taking children away from certain people because you disapprove of them is – well, I'll avoid any nasty characterizations and just say, not in *my* country. Is that something you want to see in yours?

 

First of all, pedophilia and bestiality are non-issues simply because they are illegal. Before they can ask for marriage rights, these "folks" would first have to become legal, which they won't. The reason why these practices will always remain criminal is because they involve sex with someone who cannot possibly give informed consent (i.e., a child or an animal), hence it is criminal coercion (apart from being repugnant as well).

Once we agree on the above, why is it that marriage needs to be "limiting"? On the contrary, I would argue that marriage is meant to open doors. I see no harm in polygamists getting married. Besides, they already are, just not in normal churches, but rather in pagan rituals.

 

One fallacy in your argument is that there is only one way, adoption, for gays to become parents. Consider the alternatives:
- conventionally married people who have children and later come out of the closet
- assisted reproductive techniques (which are performed all over the world, not just in this country)
- surrogacy, in which a surrogate mother carries children to term for another person or persons

And finally, the simplest one of all: gay people are perfectly capable of having children the normal way. The only difference would be that their partner would not be the other parent. Should you and your ilk decide to criminalize all the other ways of gays having their own families (in some sort of misguided dream of saving the world), all gays have to do is agree to carry each other's children (for example, two women agree to carry the babies for two men, with the resulting children being "pre-assigned" to one couple or another).

Frankly, it's not up to you to decide who would make a good parent and who wouldn't. It's not even up to the State (when was the last time the State intervened and denied somebody the right to reproduce?). That is a very dark road you are looking down, my friend.

Just for the record, my children have a fine value system, and they will make splendid additions to society when they reach adulthood. If someone were to challenge your children's values based on nothing more than your sexual appetite, you'd consider it insulting, so why do that to gays?

 

Religion is not the only way of life.
Thus the law must cater to not just religious folk.

 

As I understand it, laws are meant for the protection of citizens' property, safety and other human rights. A law against stealing is protection of property. Where does a law against same-sex marriage fit in?

 

Doesn't your argument violate the name-calling and personal attack rules of this site?

You describe gays as "clowns", "zapping each other in the tail", and "wearing dildos on their heads". ThIs is the same kind of destructive xenophobia that allows bigots of all races and creeds to denigrate and dehumanize one another. It certainly does not belong on a debate site.

You want the black civil right struggle to be held up reverently, while the gay struggle to avoid being beaten like animals and jailed (a struggle which still continues in places around the globe thanks to people like you), should be treated like a bunch of rutting deviants who only want to run around all day having sex.

That is pure ignorance on your part. Homosexuals are regular people who live regular lives that differ from yours in only two ways: first, they are attracted to people of their own sex, and second, they are treated like human scum, denied basic civil rights, and abused by people like you who only know how to hate.

 

Your contention that marriage laws are so child-centric that they cannot be easily extended to same-sex couples without disastrous consequences are unfounded. Your whole argument depends on the existence of these consequences, but you have not supplied a single one. Despite sweeping generalizations like “That assumption has huge implications, and has affected the development of marriage law in countless of [sic] direct and indirect ways,” you have not provided a single example of an aspect of marriage law that would cause society to suffer if gays were permitted to marry.

I believe that extending marriage laws (which already apply to sterile people, old people, and others who cannot procreate without outside help) to a class of people who do not in any meaningful way differ from those groups, will not make a single difference to society. If you think it will, I believe the onus is on you to demonstrate that difference.

Gay people already have relationships, and they already are raising children within those relationships. Allowing homosexuals access to marriage laws which strengthen and support those relationships (and therefore strengthen and support the stability of the child's home) only makes public policy sense. It is nonsensical, in fact, to deny the children of homosexual families, who are indistinguishable from their counterparts growing up in heterosexual families, the exact same benefits and responsibilities. There is no “different scenario”, as you refer to in one of your rebuttals. If there is, please describe it for us.

 

Chris and Pat met soon after high school and moved in together. They saved up their money and bought a small starter house, and decided they wanted to have children. They were having some problems conceiving, so they availed themselves of modern science's offerings and soon were raising twins. Pat went out to work each day, leaving Chris to do most of the child-rearing. They all spent time together on the weekends.

Chris and Pat decided to get married, a bit later than either of their parents would have liked. They went down to the justice of the peace one afternoon to make it all legal.

Should they be allowed to marry?

Does it matter to you whether Chris has a penis or a vagina, or whether Pat has a penis or a vagina, or what combination of penises and vaginae they have between them? When they appear before the city official to get their marriage license, should that official reach into each of their pants to verify which genitalia they each have, and then mark on a form that he's confirmed they are of different sexes?

If so, please explain why. Note that I am not asking a general question about gay marriage or slippery slopes or anything like that. I just want to know what interest the State has in knowing who has what genitalia in order to allow this family, including the children, to be secure and legal.

 

I'm sorry, was that a rebuttal to me? It didn't address the fundamental point I made: It is your responsibility to provide an example of how the State will suffer if it extends the current marriage laws to apply to homosexuals (that is, if the State ignores your suggestions for some kind of civil union).

Whether or not the State has an interest in procreation, there is no aspect of marital law that requires or inquires about fertility. Fertility and procreation have nothing to do with current marriage law. Your response was a total red herring.

“Did you read my argument? I suggested extending those portions of the laws which make sense for homosexual couples to homosexual couples.”

Yes, I read your argument. You advocate a form of “civil unions” to be implemented slowly over time until they are equivalent to the current marriage law except for those aspects of the current marriage laws that apply only to heterosexuals because of their statistical tendency to reproduce. I asked you to give me an example of one such aspect of the current marriage laws that would eventually not be applicable to homosexuals. I reiterate that request.

I should also point out that as is being proven every day around the world, as homosexuality becomes more and more accepted, homosexuals are reproducing more and more. While they may never reach the same statistical level of reproduction that heterosexuals do, they will reach substantial numbers, perhaps on a par with heterosexuals who marry later in life (late 30's, early 40's). That, however, is just conjecture on my part, based on my personal observations.

 

"Gay marriage is helping spread the AIDs virus"--- ummm... that's supposed to be an argument AGAINST gay marriage????

Either this person is joking or an idiot--- insofar as gay marriage affects the spread of aids one would expect it to SLOW the spread of AIDS.

WHy?-- well, according to the common understanding of the term "marriage" (even as applied to gay/polyamorous/open/ and otherwise unconventional unions) this is an institution that is generally expected to steer the participants towards FEWER sexual partners (absolute monogamy in the ideal) NOT more. One of the reasons why AIDS tends to spread so quickly in homosexual populations is because of the EXTREMELY high rates of promiscuity (albeit oftentimes only among a very small subset of the 'gay community')

--- Looked at from this perspective-- allowing gay marriage should DECREASE the spread of aids...

The only (logically flawed) reason why condoning gay marriage would INCREASE aids would be if it somehow encouraged otherwise str8 people to become gay--- which makes little or no sense to me.

 

Are you aware that for thousands of years “marriage” was a ritual whose purpose was to transfer property and bind together clans? Do you realize that women were considered chattel, and that neither participant in a marriage had any free will? Far from the “Cinderella” model we train our children with, marriage was just a financial and political transaction.

That is the vaunted history you are so valiantly defending. In fact, marriage *did* change, from that model to the one we take for granted now. And in between it was unthinkable for blacks to marry whites; marriage changed again. It seems you have conveniently forgotten the past and wish to slam the door now that marriage has been re-defined the way you like it.

Do you realize that a mere 50 years ago when people were arguing against miscegenation they used the *exact* *same* arguments that you are using now? Look it up. Exactly the same. It's not a coincidence. It's because they had no good reason to stop blacks and whites from marrying, and you have no good reason to stop two men or two women from marrying. Save your polygamy and zoological arguments and talk about the issue at hand: two grown consenting adults wanting the same rights you want to keep for yourself.


As far as The Incredibles, this at least is one argument that nobody used in the 1950's (at least not in that form). So your point is that marriage is so special that it has to be defended against any changes because such changes would render it ordinary (and what's the problem with that again?). Forgetting for a moment my previous descriptions of the changes marriage has already gone, what “special” nature of marriage are you advocating? This thread already mentions the “55 hour” marriage of some spoiled brat. What about arranged marriages – are you protecting them too? And marriages between 80 year old men and 13 year old girls (with their parent's permission, of course) – that's “special” all right, and certainly it's worth sacrificing the civil rights of millions of gay people to defend them. Nor would you disturb the special right of people to marry 3, 5, 10, 20 times – that's *really* special, and it really shows the world how important it is to take marriage seriously. Good thing you are here to defend all these special marriages, and for that matter *any* other marriage as long as a judge verifies that the two special people involve have different genitalia. We sure wouldn't want two grown adults raising children to use the law and vows to announce that they intend to care for each other until they die. That's only for you special heterosexuals, and you're doing a bang-up job of it.

Common sense? Try again.

 

u say it goes against human nature...but how can anyone be sure as to what human nature really is... there is no proof to say that guys marrying only women is human nature.

Also u falsely state "religion is a way of life. Without it, we're lost." This state meant is not true because if you look at the number of people who do not have a religion, who do not believe in a higher being you will see that there are alot of people and that they are not lost. there for your statemeant is void.

Many people hide behind religion as an excuss. "I did this because the bible tells me so,"" I did that because the bible tells me so." people make up excusses in their religion because personally they are against Gay marriage.

 

First of all, let me commend you on making a well-worded and well-explained argument. Finally, someone who speaks coherently...

Now, I agree that the word "marriage" should not be redefined because it gives others a little too much leeway. I myself am in favor of civil unions and now fully believe that the reason this argument exsits is because the LGBT community feels that civil unions are too limited in terms of rights and privileges and therefore now want marriage. I think New Jersey had it right when they wanted to call the "gay marriages" they were starting to have something else. I don't know if they have yet, though.

As for polygamists and pedophiles, polygamy and pedophilia are illegal. I don't know exactly where they are and where they aren't (why am I so tempted to say that all three are legal in our president's home state of Texas right now?) but it would undo quite a long track record of stable American jurisprudence to make these illegal acts legal. As for those into beastiality, animals lack the physical and mental capacity to comprehend the terms of a marriage contract, let alone sign one. Also, I don't think they, as animals, have what the government would recognize as "legal standing."

I would like to say that just as a heterosexual couple is in love and wants to get married, they also understand, or should understand, in laymen's terms, what they're getting into. I think instead of making the definition of marriage broader, how about we start making more specific instead.

Can someone please run down the rights and privileges a heterosexual pair gets when they're married and the rights given to those civilly united and then maybe we'd get somewhere here...

 

Really so people never got married before the bible existed? And people that do not follow the bible, what happens to them? I am pretty sure a few Hindus, Jews, Buddhist, Muslims, etc, and even, God forbid, Atheist have gotten married. So exactly what does it have to do with the bible?

My upcoming marriage will have nothing to do with the bible, but I am pretty sure the country will still recognize me as married.

 

(Part 1)
*You* are making the positive statement, that current marriage laws are somehow historically based on some probability of reproduction. As the one who makes the claim, it should be your responsibility to demonstrate it. Yet you don't - you just keep making the claim.

Presumably you admit that there is no legal reference to procreation or reproduction in current U.S. marriage laws, but you claim that deep within the concept of marriage laws is buried statistical analyses that rely on reproduction. That is a heavy claim, one that is far from obvious and is in dire need of some form of substantiation.

My understanding of the history of marriage does not bear out your claim. What is your basis for concluding that ancient governments (who formalized common law marriage which was then codified into U.S. law) used reproduction statistics for this purpose? To demonstrate your point some historical evidence of the statistical basis of common law marriage would be helpful.

Even if I postulate that your claim is correct, you haven't addressed the sociological fact that homosexual couples are now becoming parents at faster and faster rates. Given your statistical argument in defense of marriage, you should have some formula that should show the break-even point at which homosexual reproductive proclivities will allow them equal access to existing marriage laws. More simply, if across all marriages heterosexuals reproduce at rate R, do homosexuals need to match R exactly to get equal rights? Can they be .9R, or .5R?

If instead of the overall rate R, consider the rate of stable, 2 parent, non-divorced heterosexual procreators, R-stable. Shouldn't homosexuals only need to match this metric to gain equal access to marriage laws? Isn't R-stable a better indicator of the health of the children being raised, and therefore the overall benefit to society? In my experience the overall rate of committed non-divorced homosexual parents is much higher than heterosexual parents (simply because the universe is so much smaller and children do not arrive "by accident") - this would appear to be to society's overall benefit.

Finally, isn't one of the primary purposes of marriage laws to provide a secure home for the progeny of those marriages? How are the interests of the *children* of a homosexual couple advanced or protected by denying their parents access to marriage laws?

 

(Part 2)
You are talking about cost savings in a very general way, but I do not believe any of those generalizations hold up given actual realistic facts. Arguing generalities is easy because it doesn't require any evidence, just words, which are cheap.

"The state sustains a net loss for each couple to which it grants rights and enforces responsibilities where the couple bore no children."

This is unproveable, unrealistic and frankly grandiose. It presumes (among a million other things) that there is no benefit to society to marrying people besides procreation (which is blantantly untrue), and that society pays a higher price for childless marriages than for marriages with children (an absurd contention. Society pays dearly for at least 2 decades for each helpless human brought into it, and the cost for unhealthy humans quickly skyrockets both in terms of money outlays and lost productivity).

Quite apart from the merits of your analysis is your contention that it has any bearing whatsoever on marriage laws, past or present. Your analysis is an attempt to justify the present system, not to explain it. Your backwards justification is then used to provide a forward justification for continuing to exclude homosexuals (who many people find personally distasteful) from a set of laws. A pretty coincidence, that.

Some less charitable people would call your argument an attempt to use psuedo-scientific analysis to justify a pre-existing prejudice.

Finally, can you supply a single *specific* example of how this kind of analysis you are proposing has been used before? Is this a one-off attempt to exclude gays from marrying (like it sounds) or is it a tried-and-true public policy that has sound analytical bases? If the latter, just one example will do. If the former, don't bother.

 

The reason people dont want gay marrage is because its new and whenever something happens thgat people dont understand, they kill it, or in this case outlaw it.

 

"All laws are derived from your moral beliefs. "

Can you explain to me please how it is immoral to travel 40 miles per hour in a 35 mile per hour zone?

What about the morality of giving the government 25% of my paycheck?

I seriously wonder about the "morality" of the laws the Germans crafted during World War 2...what commandment was Adolf Eichmann following in his laws?

NOT all laws are derived from moral beliefs. I would say that most laws are derived from a desire to further the goals of society, whatever that may be. Laws may be both good or bad...hopefully with the bad laws being weeded out with time. Slavery used to be a legal act, with a whole raft of laws behind it. It was seen to be unfair and was overturned as a result. I don't see how your argument holds water in this case.

 

I have always been of the belief that this question was framed very badly. The problem is that framing it correctly could be even more difficult. I am willing to concede that marriage is a religious union....just simply to forestall arguments about minutia. The problem is that people get "married" all the time who are not religious...so obviously the logic doesn't track.

I think that the best solution is to not attach any legalities whatsoever to the term marriage. The idea of a civil union should be made where all the laws attach to. The problem with this is that it would involve some fairly major changes to the books, whereas allowing two people of the same sex to marry involves no further lawmaking...we are currently trying to make laws specifying what marriage isn't...indicating that marriage may be implicitly not defined. We don't need to say a car is not a dog, everyone understands that, however we feel a need to say that a marriage is not the lasting union between two men, or between two women. This indicates a degree of lexical ambiguity. If the ambiguity is allowed to last, then such legal overhauling becomes unnecessary.

I'm curious about something from the other side of the fence...to those against same sex marriage, if a man gets a sex change and becomes a woman, should he/she be allowed to marry? If not...how do you enforce it?

 

The Bible is not the origin of marriage. Marriage is found in almost every society, including those that were never touched by Christianity (or Judaism) and societies that preceded Christianity (and Judaism). The Bible can only be argued to be the origin of Christian marriage, and even that is difficult to prove.

 

Interesting idea. So in order for someone to have 'civil rights' they must go through significant hardship. Please do elaborate on what hardships constitute an appropriate amount for you to agree that civil rights are deserved by a group of people? Obviously physical, mental, and emotional abuse, murder, social ostracism and obviously unequal treatment in the eyes of the law do not qualify.

Do we measure the deservedness of civil rights based upon the amount of pain a people has gone through? I thought civil rights were given not because "theyve suffered enough" but because they deserve it. If you simply think that gays do not deserve them, then you have no place making a comparison to the black civil rights movement. If you think that it is suffering based, the I don't believe you have a true concept of what civil rights are.

 

What reasons can you present that a gay couple would have a detrimental affect on the raising of a child? I have seen studies on the positive effects of a male/female couple raising a child, and the data is strong for the veracity of that argument. The problem is that there are not enough families of this nature willing to adopt a child....too many of them are raised in foster care, feeling like just another part of the system. The home environment is all too often transient, and cases where children do not get care remotely equal to two loving parents are far too common.

I have yet to see a decent unbiased study as to the long term effects of children raised by a same sex couple, specifically as to their level of socialization and happiness, both in their young life and moving on. I think it has been conclusively proven that being raised by a same sex couple does not have an observable correlation to the child's sexuality, so that argument is moot.

 

who the f**k cares... let gay people like gay people if they want

 

The appeal to common sense is the last defense of those with no facts. “Common sense” made slavery okay. “Common sense” meant women shouldn’t have the right to vote. Facts are the cure for and the antithesis of common sense, and facts are what debates should be composed of.

”But arguing generalities is robust against losing the forest for the trees. “

Despite my repeated requests you have yet to point out a single tree. We’re hardly in danger of losing sight of the forest.

”My proposition is that governments have developed marriage laws in response to realities which are reflected in statistics, including and especially those of procreation. I believe that this is common sense. “

So I guess I was the only one of us who was trying to take your formulas seriously. Again you appeal to “common sense” and generalities and eschew any sort of fact-based argument.

"If the implicit extrapolation you're making is correct, then the law can be adjusted accordingly.”

The funny thing is how detailed this foray into controlling marriage has become. There’s no question about controlling people who marry 20 times in a row, or for 5 days or people 70 years younger than themselves, but the amount of thought you’re giving to controlling two consenting adults who wish to legalize their commitment to one another is astounding.

”First, this growth might soon be inhibited by limiting factors.”

Sure, and aliens might grow under mushrooms too. Let’s make sure the law accounts for that possibility too.

“(incidentally, male/male and female/female couples should be treated differently)). “

You casually toss in that line to show that straight people are fully empowered to micro-manage the affairs of homosexuals. You might want to use some of your skill to clean your own people’s act up first.

By the way, if someone is born with an indeterminate sexual identity (which happens much more than you probably think it does), or if they change their sexual identification, how will that affect the new civil-union-cum-marriage structure you are constructing? Will you be using genetic markers, genitalia, statistical tests of mental identification, or some other more advanced method to determine whether two people should be permitted to marry under the “M-M” or “W-W” rules? Of course there are no such problems for M-W relationships… or are there?

“They need to cross the threshold such that the state does better than break even.”

I showed you that that the State does far worse than “break even” when married people have children. What happened to your response to that fact?

”"How are the interests of the *children* of a homosexual couple advanced or protected by denying their parents access to marriage laws?" “

”They aren't. How can any child's interests be advanced by not giving him $100? This is just the same cost/benefit question. “

Huh? If two people decide to marry and procreate, the question is whether they should be allowed to legally marry if they happen to have the same genitalia. Nobody’s talking about giving children money. We’re talking about letting their parents marry, just as heterosexual parents do. My question to you was how it helps children of homosexuals to deny their parents the right to legally commit to one another.

”But by giving it voice in the debate, you seem to be one of those less charitable people. People less charitable than me would call that a cheap shot.”

And so you participate in the same act and are guilty of the same crime.

“On the other hand, your statements about stability of homosexual relationships and your implicit assumptions about the continued rate of growth of homosexual parenthood are closer to pseudo-science (being anecdotal and unjustifiable, respectively). “

They are indeed anecdotal, as I expressed when I wrote them. They are also closer to actual facts than anything you have expressed. By “unjustifiable” do you mean I cannot have any basis for my explicit assertions? You’re wrong. My basis is my experience, which in this case is considerable more realistic than yours (for the record, I am a gay person with children and a member of several organizations created expressly for people like me).

The “pseudo-science” I refer to is your “analysis” of the cost benefit (remember your $X and $Y and P and Q?) of marriage. Now you claim that that was just a generalization of common sense (or something like that) but on its own it sure looks like an attempt to submit your thesis to some sort of scientific analysis.

""Is this a one-off attempt to exclude gays from marrying (like it sounds)""

”Since it has been framed as an issue of prejudice, and since progressive ideals against prejudice are among the most universally appealing, people are more likely to accept the position for gay marriage without questioning it as much.”

That’s not the reason I said it. I said it because it looks like the truth. When someone struggles so valiantly to defend the indefensible, it is only logical to search for the true reason behind their fervor. Remember the Catholic Church vs. Copernicus? Your theory of “fertility-based common sense marriage laws” and solution of “civil unions merging with marriage with exceptions for statistical differences in procreation and different rules for unions of people with different genitalia“ solution” reminds me of Ptolemy's cycles and epicycles.

”That's the reason I picked up on this debate in the first place. I'm tired of hearing the worst arguments for gay marriage given prominence (and the best buried), while the best arguments against it are ignored (while the worst are paraded about).”

This is a truly fascinating statement. What is your “best” argument for and against gay marriage? After reading volumes from you I still have no clear grasp. I say people are people and we should let them marry one another without asking them what’s in their pants. Is there a better “pro” argument than that? As far as "anti" arguments, the best bet is religion - there's never going to be a defense against that one, and it's basically the only argument that isn't nonsense.

 

What about gay couples who *do* have actual human children? Shouldn't those families have access to health insurance? Should we punish the children of those couples because of your fear that cats and dogs will be part of a lawsuit in two years?

There are real people behind your "imagination". By the way, do your children have access to health insurance?

 

This argument rests on one key point. What is marriage? If marriage is just a commitment between two people to stay with each other for the rest of their lives. Then in that definition anyone should be allowed to be married and get the tax right offs for it. You do not have to be gay, that is, have sexual attraction and intercourse with your same sex partner, to love unsexually love and make a commitment to live with them for the rest of your life. This idea is what society makes us believe. I will use a Christian argument to prove my point.
In the Old Testament book Ruth, Naomi, a widow, recently had her husband die so she decided to go back home leaving her in laws behind her. Ruth persisted to follow her and she may a vow that she would leave her home everything she new so she could live with Naomi because she loved Naomi so much. From her vow Christians derived many of the words used in the language of a wedding vow. This was a completely nonsexual love. If a commitments that happens to be sexual are honored by the government by tax write offs, so should asexual commitments. You can't differentiate between the two unless you want to become inquisitors. so therefor homosexual heterosexual and asexual "marriages" or civil unions can be practically all the same meanings with different words. Therefor they should get the same honoring by the government.

 

There is no such thing as right or wrong. Just a difference of opinion. When it comes to my life, no one tells me what to do. Period....IMO :-)

 

Yes! I'm not gay, but I agree with that.
Thas simple: With more gays, less man to take my girls! LOL

 

“"Facts are the cure for and the antithesis of common sense..." “

“What is your factual basis for that assertion? Because I disagree. Facts are not the antithesis of common sense. In fact, I would say that any use of facts is ultimately couched in common sense. But if you have facts that prove otherwise, go ahead.”

The phrase that explains my point is “counter-intuitive.” It means that common sense tells you one thing but a factual analysis may lead to a different conclusion. Please tell me you understand this concept without me having to explain it more than that. Parents are explaining things like this to their kids all the time: from different points of view, people understand “common sense” completely differently (to a child it makes common sense to eat candy and ice cream all the time).

Common sense is subjective. Facts are objective. That's why the two are at odds. Common sense to Muslims is not the same as common sense to Christians.


"I bet some of those trees are the tallest trees in the forest"

Let's examine this statement. It is a tautology – clearly *some* of the the trees in the forest are the tallest trees. Therefore it would be inane to argue for or against this statement. Additionally, due to the nature of the statement (“tallest”) you must by definition examine every tree in the forest (or come up with a good statistical approximation) to know which *are* the tallest trees in the forest. Examining individual trees is pointless, not because examination of individual trees gives you no information, but because your statement is a tautology.

Now if instead of your statement I say “Some of the trees in that forest are diseased”, *then* it would make sense to examine some of the trees in the forest. You might get a positive result (if you find a diseased tree), and you might not get enough information to validate the statement, but you *will* gain some information. Or you could generalize and say “all living things get diseases therefore common sense tells me the statement is true,” in which case I would ask you to defend *that* statement, since common sense also tells me that if a forest is small enough and homogeneous enough that it may well consist of all healthy trees. In any case, the statement alone is not sufficient justification to cut down all the trees.

Now let's look at your main argument (I paraphrase): “It costs society financially when it marries people and generally recoups that cost only when the couple reproduces.” Far from a tautology, this statement begs for some sort of evidence, even if only some random examples. I *have* begged you, but you have provided nothing but appeals to common sense and forests and trees.


“You can hang your hat on the idea that procreation has nothing to do with marriage law, and I will hang my hat on the idea that it has something to do with it.”

I have never hung my hat on your straw man assertion that “procreation has nothing to do with
marriage law”. My points are 1) you haven't demonstrated any evidence for your contention that the State sustains a net loss for each marriage that does not produce offspring, and 2) this is not a question of financial gain or loss, but of civil rights.


“It matters how the state does when people have or will have children get married.”

What is your basis for making this bald statement? Certainly there is no such law in this country addressing reproduction of married couples. Your reliance on “common sense” and “hidden formulas” is well and good, but don't you need *some* sort of evidence to make such a sweeping statement? Does modern economics (I last studied it in the '70s) automatically give credence to all hidden formulas, or do they have to have some factual basis? Hopefully economists don't rely on “common sense” to justify their positions, the way you seem to.

In any case I can demonstrate the falsity of your claim. You are applying the above rule to homosexuals. Let's say a good statistical analysis showed (and this is a hypothetical, not a statement of fact or a claim) that when white people marry it cost the State more than when Hispanic people marry. You'll agree, I hope, that such a statement is subject to analysis, is conceivable, and therefore is possibly true. If it were true, would you advocate different marriage laws for whites and Hispanics?

If your answer is “yes” ... I won't even bother finishing that sentence, because of course your answer is not “yes.” Therefore, why is it permissible to create a separate system of laws for a sub-group distinguished by their sexuality and not for a sub-group distinguished by their ethnicity?


“...Presumably because you have been indoctrinated with the idea that it is solely a civil rights issue...”

Because you say “solely” I assume you admit that this is at least partially a civil rights issue. My question to you is whether the State's financial losses (according to you) override those civil rights issues. If so, please give me another example of how the State can override civil rights based on a financial incentive.


my quote restored
“”Your theory of “fertility-based common sense marriage laws” and solution of “civil unions merging with marriage with exceptions for statistical differences in procreation and different rules for unions of people with different genitalia“ solution” reminds me of Ptolemy's cycles and epicycles.””

"Procreation influences marriage laws" = epicycles?

You misstated your premise in order to make me look foolish. I never said procreation had no influence on marriage laws. I am contesting your view that the cost to society of marrying people is recouped by those people having children. A), it is not necessarily true (in fact, I think I presented some strong evidence that it is false; see below), and B), it is irrelevant to the issue of granting equal rights to all members of society.

I ask you where the following analysis fails: A married couple without children costs the State some negligible legal and processing fees, perhaps some income tax, and potentially the cost of caring for them when they are older (although I could easily posit that without spending their money on raising children a majority of childless couples are better able to pay for their own old age care). A married couple *with* children will cost the state the same administrative costs as the childless couple, plus a lot more administrative costs for each child, then educational expenses, health care expenses, tax deductions, police and judicial costs (for less-than-perfect children who break the law), foster parenting costs (for less-than-perfect parents), adoption costs, judicial costs for divorces (which become immensely more expensive when children are involved), etc. I could go on for hours. Now, show me something similar which explains how childless couples end up costing the State more than couples with children.


“...What facts would you like to introduce to show that procreation has not influenced marriage laws?...”

Again, I never said it.

Since you ended with a (mis) characterization of my arguing technique, let me say that your penchant for straw man arguments is beneath you. To take my comments out of context, replace your voluminous arguments with a 4 word summary, and then claim I am responding to that 4 word summary, is patently unfair.

 

Middleman:

I agree with you about the site, but it *is* in beta and I can live with some idiosyncracies and deficits. I accidentally clicked "Convinced" on this rebuttal, and now I can't take it back!

You are referring to my rebuttal dated Feb 06, 2007 07:16, to which you responded on Feb 07, 2007 07:09. I know this these are the key arguments because in mine I introduced Ptolomy and in yours you refer to him.

Both arguments still appear in the debate. I don't know why you think mine was deleted. I didn't delete it and it's not deleted when I bring up the page. If it does not show up on your debate, there is a problem with the site. Let me know and I can email you the text.

At some point in our discussions I did edit one of my posts, less than half an hour after posting it, and I think you had already responded. However that doesn't affect this particular exchange you are speaking of.

I always type things in a word processor first, rather than trust the browser with my prose, so if you need a copy of anything I still have it.

[Edited]
Middleman, could you please edit your post so it doesn't say that I deleted my post? That is not true, and if in fact you can't see my post, it is a bug in the site. Thanks.

 

Humans are not the only species that experience gay love. It is a perfectly natural thing to those who are gay; heterosexuality is unnatural to homosexuals.

Homosexuals can reproduce just fine, although not with their partners. Nothing stops gay people from reproducing just as readily as heterosexuals - it just doesn't happen by accident.

Human beings are extremely complex creatures. It is too simplistic to reduce our emotions and sexuality to "why not just be friends?".

It is very admirable that you do not hate or isolate homosexuals. However your good will depends upon them remaining a minority, invisible, inferior, and being looked down upon. How would you feel if someone told you this was your lot in life, to be tolerated as long as you remain inferior and quiet about it?

Finally, your contention that children will choose homosexuality is discredited and incorrect. The vast majority of homosexuals do not choose their orientation, and in fact have a very hard time coming to terms with it themselves. Your attitude reinforces their self-loathing, which in turn increases their suicide rate and self-destructive behavior, which others then use against them to prove they are unhealthy and depressed.

 

After reading most of the "Against Gay Marriage" arguments, I have to admit this is one of the weakest arguments. When you put Gay's in the same group as the "bestiality folks and the pedophile folks" it really shows you ignorance. The biggest flaw in this argument is that both bestiality and pedophiles are forcing an act upon someone or something that cannot give consent. Two adult males or females can. You should and could only compare gays to Straight people.

 

"Once you redefine something you change it permanently, and once you declare it "changeable" you can't stop it from being changed repeatedly. "

This immutability of marriage is the root of your entire thesis. And, as is mentioned elsewhere far more eloquently, it is false. Interracial marriages had been illegal, and so has divorce. By your logic, then "you can't stop [marriage] from being changed repeatedly". So why are you trying?


BTW: Unlike you, I don't need to deny equal rights to other people in order to feel "special".

 

I don't care if calling it "marriage" offends people, or violates what they call the sanctity of marriage, gays should have the same RIGHTS that a married couple gets. Civil Union, Marriage, the coming together of two souls, or whatever you prefer to call it- gays NEED to be recognized on that level. Not allowing this is a violation to the constitution and it's unfortunate that the Supreme Court won't take a case on this because they're leaving it up to the states, yet Bush wanted to make an amendment stating what marriage is...

 

"Religion is there to act as guidelines to what is right and what is wrong. Religion is a way of life. Without it, we're lost."

Nope. Sorry. I know the difference between right and wrong. I know the difference between good and evil. I have my own set of values. I answer to my own conscience before anyone, or anything, else.

I'm a good person because I choose to be, not because I'm afraid of spending eternity burning in hell.

 

Selective quoting of a prior argument:

You quoted me but failed to reproduce the beginning of my statement – here it is in its entirety (Feb 5 1:11): “[...] there is no aspect of marital law that requires or inquires about fertility. Fertility and procreation have nothing to do with current marriage law.” *That* is what I was saying; I was *not* refuting your statement (which you made *after* I said the above, not before) that marriage law was influenced by procreation. The way you quoted me and juxtaposed your subsequent argument made it look like I was contradicting myself, which is neither true nor fair.

My words do not speak to what influenced marriage law. Whether such laws are historically evolved from fertility considerations is neither significant nor in dispute, nor was I referring to that contention when I made my statement. Which you knew.

Then you say:

“First, let me point out an amusing illustration. I demanded facts rather than common sense to back up your assertion that facts and common sense are antithetical (not different, mind you, but antithetical). You supplied no facts, but rather made an appeal to common sense: "Please tell me you understand this concept without me having to explain it more than that."”

You quoted the third sentence of 8 sentences I wrote explaining why common sense is antithetical to facts. That was the only sentence of the 8 that did not directly address facts concerning the issue. That you chose to quote and respond to that sentence and ignore the other 7 tells me you are not arguing honestly. There is no point to my writing direct answers to your direct questions since you purposely ignore the intent and spirit of my answer and instead use semantic jumbling, selective quoting, and mischaracterization to make those answers look stupid.


Back to the argument at hand:

“Note that my appeal to common sense arose from and has always been limited to the dispute on whether procreation has influenced marriage law.”

I've already agreed to your point. Let's dispose of the “common sense” dispute.


Missing examples:

“On the contrary. I say that whether there is a civil rights issue depends on whether the State's financial losses are significant.”

I asked for an example of where the State overrides civil rights based on a financial incentive. Ignore for the moment whether gay marriage provides such a rationale – can you supply an example of *any* situation where the State has eroded civil rights for one group because of *financial* considerations? If not, then I propose there is no point arguing whether this particular situation justifies such an act, because such acts never occur.

For example, consider the group consisting of premature infants born weighing less than 2 pounds. These people are “significant[ly]” costly to society in terms of money and productivity, yet there are no laws denying them equal rights to health care (say, prohibiting doctors from operating on them). Here's a clear-cut example of a tiny minority of people who are costing the State enormous amounts of money and effort, and yet those costs do not outweigh their civil rights. Can you provide an example of the opposite, where a group's civil rights are outweighed by their cost to society?

“But most laws promote the social good at the expense of a group (almost no laws are perfectly Pareto optimal).”

Do you have any examples? “Most” means you think 50% of laws promote social good at the expense of a group. Like what, speed limit laws? Seat belt laws? Passport laws? Murder laws? Are you seriously expressing the opinion that 51% of laws enforce a “social good” to the detriment of a particular group of people? Don't you think huge statements like this one deserve some sort of attempt at a factual support? Or is this just “common sense” at work again?

Another huge, groundless claim you make, which becomes broader and broader each time you express it, is that laws are based on cost. Certainly laws are influenced by costs, but you are making the claim that the primary measure of a law's worth is its financial cost to society vs. its financial payout. I am not arguing this point any more because you haven't provided any examples of it and I don't think it is true. You are using it as a justification for being against gay marriage and therefore I should address it in that context, but I am weary of fighting that side battle when you have provided nothing but blanket assertions and appeals to “modern economics” and “common sense”.

And now you off to the races on discrimination. Using the same argument you fail to support with respect to gay marriages, you now suggest that we *would* (and presumably *should* based on cost analysis) have different laws for different races if we could demonstrate the cost to society is different. I'm not arguing this because it is spectacularly wrong and way off track for this conversation. I introduced the concept of discrimination with respect to marriage laws because it is so obvious (my appeal to common sense) that there should be none. At least you're consistent in advocating discrimination if the cost justifies it.

“You might suggest that sexual preference should receive the same
standard of scrutiny under equal protection as race.”

Yup.

“it is not quite as worrisome as it is in the case of race because (a) race is generally more quickly
identifiable (visually, often by the name, sometimes by speech patterns, etc.) where sexual preferences are not always quickly identifiable”

So gay people don't deserve to be treated equally under the law because they can't be picked out of a crowd?

“...homosexual people are finding more acceptance in various parts of society”

Or because they they have become more tolerated by society?

“Second, even racial distinctions are sometimes upheld under equal protection where race has a direct bearing on the matter and not merely a correlation.”

Like when? An example would be helpful.

“Gender has a direct bearing on procreation, and so might survive even the strictest equal protection scrutiny were it applied.”

It might. And it might not. An example would certainly be helpful.


“I told you earlier that it doesn't matter to my argument how the state does when married people have children. It matters how the state does when people who have or will have children get married. Did you understand the distinction?”

Sincerely, I have no idea what you're getting at. If there's some deep thought in this comment, it's completely lost on me.

You say that costs matter. I give you examples of costs. Instead of responding to those examples or giving your own and tying yourself to reality, you ignore my examples, make an arcane distinction which has nothing to do with them, and (needless to say) provide no examples of your own (I'm beginning to realize that you really don't like examples). Okay, so take my examples and change the phrase “married couple” to “couple-who-want-to-get-married”. Now the paragraph describes “people who have or will have children” and want to get married, and therefore they matter to government and the costs matter. All the rest of the stuff in the paragraph stands (all my examples of costs). Can you please answer the question? How does the State do better when couples-who-want-to-get-married have children than couples-who-want-to-get-married who don't have children?

By the way, isn't “people who have or will have children” pretty much 100% of young people? I mean, you can't take a 20 year old and say “this person will never have children.” If that person wants to marry, doesn't the state have to presume they will reproduce whether their relationship is straight or gay? If it's in the State's best interests to see everyone reproduce, the State should make sure everyone marries a partner and provide free fertility treatment to all couples (gay or straight) that want to get pregnant. This might well eliminate any reproductive distinction (“baby gap”) between straights and gays.

 

Clearly, God created Adam and Eve so that Adam could gather 10 Eves and marry them all, right?

Your mistaken notion that God "created" human beings is silly, for starters. But even if he did, it's absolutely asinine to assume two sexes mean they are supposed to get married. Marriage is nothing but a piece of paper, ultimately. Women and men might be necessary to procreate, but only ignorant folks conclude that women and men are intended to somehow become "married" if for no other notion than their physical plumbing.

You want to differentiate humans from animals, but the sad fact remains that we ARE animals, even if we have higher reasoning abilities. As for the notion of gay animals, you are sadly mistaken, once again. Google "OHSU GAY RAM STUDY" and you'll begin to learn a few things. There are, in fact, a number of animals who engage in homosexual relations. Female seagulls often mate for life with other females, only mating with males when it comes time to breed.

Beside that, how do you explain animals that don't mate with animals of the opposite sex to have babies? Yes, those exist do exist. Many animals, in fact, can reproduce without mating at all.

Women and men DO exist for a reason. But it's ignorant to assume you know why that is.

 

Many of your sources are good, sabrejimmy. And many of your facts are straightforward, however a few flaws...

One, one of your sources is based on homosexual relationships in the Netherlands, AIDS cases are already known to be more frequent in African-Americans, one of your sources appears to be religiously inclined and can be seen as biased, the public agenda page concedes heterosexuals spread AIDS too, single heterosexual parents have been raising perfectly healthy children already and the domestic violence claims are 16 years old and could have changed significantly in both homosexual and heterosexual households since. Now, a fellow user wanted statistics from the CDC or some organization who is, in their eyes, reputable.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm#exposure

According to the above page (whose data is only two years old), AIDS cases brought about by homosexual sexual contact alone rose approximately 2298%. AIDS cases brought about by heterosexual contact increased approximately 1122%. Also, AIDS cases brought about by injection drug use rose approximately 2593%. All in 2005. This shows us a few things:

-One, unprotected homosexual sexual contact contributing to the spread of AIDS is a truth.
-Two, heterosexual sexual contact ALSO leads to AIDS, meaning gays aren't the only ones spreading it.
-Three, gay marriage is not listed as a cause of exposure on this list, meaning it may or may not have any positive or negative effect on future statistics and your claim that gay marriage helps the spread of AIDS is invalid.
-Four, there exists a cause that spread AIDS faster than homosexual sexual contact (injected drug use).

Anyone can get HIV - young and old, men and women, straight, gay and bisexual, rich and poor, and all racial and ethnic groups - but not everyone faces the same risk. Your risk comes from what you do, and who you do it with - that is, how likely it is that the person you have sex or share needles with is infected. But even if you are part of a community with a high infection rate, you can avoid getting HIV. I think that was the purpose of the "Knowing is Beautiful" PSA campaign that went around last year.

You, sabrejimmy, asked for proof that gays are not spreading AIDS. Unfortunately, they are. And even more unfortunately so are heterosexuals. Healthy, monogamous relationships, whether homo- or heterosexual, are not putting a stop to this because the number is still way too high. Clean your needles and use condoms people. And don't say it feels better without one just because you're embarrassed to be seen buying them.

Now for my position on all this: Yes to gay marriage, but not until divorce is outlawed, that way EVERYONE will take it seriously.

 

ON SELECTIVE QUOTING

'"there is no aspect of marital law that requires or inquires about fertility. Fertility and procreation have nothing to do with
current marriage law."'

"*That* is what I was saying"

Your contextualization of your quote doesn't help your case. There are two statements there. Either the second is independent of the first, in which no context was missing, or there is an implied logical relation. What is it? "Because fertility and procreation have nothing to do with current marriage law"? "Therefore fertility and procreation have nothing to do with current marriage law"? Neither of those changes the plain understanding of the statement "Fertility and procreation have nothing to do with current marriage law."

As strange as it is that you merely repeat the passage and claim an obvious alternate understanding, it is absurd that you should accuse me of setting that statement up as a straw man.


"I was *not* refuting your statement (which you made *after* I said the above, not before) that marriage law was influenced by procreation."

Speaking of context, I made a stronger version of the same statement in the last paragraph of my very first argument, which you discounted as a "sweeping generalization."

When I made the statement in its current formulation to clarify the premise I wanted you to accept, you reformulated it into a straw man claim (that governments conducted explicit statistical analysis to formulate optimal marriage laws) which you rejected.


ON SELECTIVE QUOTING, PT II

"That you chose to quote and respond to that sentence
and ignore the other 7 tells me you are not arguing honestly."

No. You don't understand my argument.

Your other 7 sentences were part of your explanation, yes. But they were not facts that show that "facts are the antithesis of common sense." Some of them were general factual claims (not particular facts), and they merely suggested that sometimes facts and common sense contradict each other, which is distinct from a claim that common sense and facts are antithetical (cannot usefully coexist).

Even if your other 7 sentences were all facts which tended to prove the point you hoped to, it still wouldn't change the point that the particular sentence I quoted was an appeal to common sense, which you had said was the disease of arguments. And it wasn't just any appeal, either. It was an appeal acknowledging the very point I was making. That perhaps more argumentation could clarify, or more facts illustrate, a point, but at one point the hope is that the parties will have a common sense to what truth they are both willing to accept without further argumentation.

And for the second time you ignored my key contention (with its attendant arguments) that "any use of facts is ultimately couched in common sense."


"you purposely ignore the intent and spirit of my answer"

You say procreation has nothing to do with marriage, then repeatedly say that you have never said it or meant it, then say that any suggestion that you have is the result of my dishonesty? I'm not ignoring the intent of your answers. You're not conveying them.


'Let's dispose of the “common sense” dispute.'

I would have loved to, only you invoked the question at least twice after saying you wished to dispose of it.



ON IGNORING ANSWERS

"My question to you is whether the State's financial losses (according to you) override those civil rights issues."

"On the contrary. I say that whether there is a civil rights
issue depends on whether the State's financial losses are
significant"

"I asked for an example of where the State overrides civil rights based on a financial incentive."

A: The State's financial losses override civil rights issues.
B: The State's financial losses determines whether a civil rights issue exists in this case.

You asked if I believed A.
I said "On the contrary, I believe B."
You complained that I did not give you an example of A.

Next time you're debating, if someone says "on the contrary," read what follows. If you don't understand the distinction, tell that person. Don't continue on in your own fantasy debate assuming that A was meant.


'Or is this just “common sense” at work again?'

Yes. You pick the worst issues to fight. They just lead to sprawling, meaningless discussions that could be bypassed if you just thought about it first.

'Are you seriously expressing the opinion that 51% of laws enforce a “social good” to the detriment of a particular group of people?'

You do realize what a difficult criterion Pareto efficiency is to fulfill in a large society, don't you? Perfect Pareto efficiency fails if one person would have been better off without the law. Seat belt laws: consider the group of people who would wear seatbelts anyway. They still have to pay for the enforcement for everyone else. I'll leave speed limit, passport laws(?), and murder laws as an exercise for you to think about.


"So gay people don't deserve to be treated equally under the law because they can't be picked out of a crowd?"

You don't understand the difference between being treated equally under the law and equal protection scrutiny. White people get basically no scrutiny, but are still treated equally under the law. If you had bothered to read and think about what I said, you probably would understand.


"Like when? An example would be helpful."

Laws concerning American Indians.


"Sincerely, I have no idea what you're getting at."

Thank you for telling me. I wish you had told me the first time rather than just ignoring the explicit distinction I made. You ignore what I say faster than I can say it, though (see "On Ignoring Answers," for an example (that should make you happy)), and your accusations against me have become too bizzare, so I'm calling it quits. Go ahead and throw in one last reply to explain yourself or declare victory or whatever.

I will admit one thing that should make you feel good. Your arguments, your writing, and your reading of my writing all betray no common sense.

 

I'm pretty sure homosexuality is natural.

Try telling that to the monkeys, dolphins, and other animals that have been found to have homosexual relationships IN NATURE.

 

Thanks for the permission to declare victory. Instead let me say that your style of arguing leaves little room for discussion of the actual issue. I have had more substantive discussions about gay marriage with ignoramuses.

Before you threw me completely off track, I criticized your *appeal* to common sense (first appearing on Feb 06 07:16, “The appeal to common sense is the last defense of those with no facts.”) as some kind of authority or reference. I wasn’t criticizing “common sense” (which would be stupid), but your reliance on it instead of facts, examples and logic.

Before you threw me completely off track, I pointed out that fertility is not an issue in current marriage law. You turned that simple fact into an argument about the origin of marriage law and appeals to modern sociological techniques and various attempts to make me look stupid. None of which changes the fact: fertility is not an issue in current marriage law.

Before you threw me completely off track, I attempted to show how reliance on common sense as an authority is flawed. You grudgingly admit that I *did* in fact make some factual points, but defend your right to attack only the one sentence out of eight that wasn’t. In fact that sentence was not an appeal to common sense (as in, accept what I’m saying because everybody thinks it’s true) but a plea for commonality. To you such a plea is grounds for ignoring the substance of the argument, the exact opposite of its intent.

Before you threw me completely off track, I tried to get you to show how paraphrase sacrificing civil rights based on economic interests /paraphrase is a legal concept that exists and is desirable. I only went down this road because you insist that the civil right to of homosexuals to marry is disposable based on its financial implications. I tried to get you to generalize your argument to show that it is not a justification for other laws in the U.S.. Amazingly, you just brought up Native American law as an example of its acceptability. That issue is so complex, so embarrassing an example of law, and so off target for this conversation, that all by itself it proves your intention was never to “convince me” but to bury me with side arguments. Your introduction of “perfect Pareto efficiency” similarly demonstrates your desire not to debate the actual issue; you just appeal to a higher authority (Pareto?) to avoid bringing up any actual facts.

Why are you so frightened of discussing the specific issue at hand? Next time try stating some premises, drawing some conclusions, sprinkling in some examples, and stopping the use of Authority (whether it be sociology, common sense, Pareto, or anything else) as the basis of your arguments.

 

Quite unlike the fact that straight Christian's molest children, divorce at a almost 50% rate and beat their wives.

So who really is the deviant people?

 

Wow. I’m happy to see that you are really thinking on your own instead of repeating someone else’s tired arguments.

Regardless, I would like to rebut.

Your argument mainly relies on reluctance to redefining marriage. However, you have not acknowledged that marriage has been defined and redefined several times (not to mention that it currently has several definitions) and the world hasn’t come to an end.

In the USA it wasn’t that long ago that marriage was defined in legal terms. Then blacks were freed from slavery and created a new threat. So, marriage was redefined to make it illegal for blacks to marry whites. Then it was redefined again to allow it (by dropping the laws that made it illegal).

In the USA (as well as other parts of the world) there are some religions, such as the Mormons, that define marriage with more than one partner.

Don’t forget that the age of consent for marriage varies from state to state. You can already get legally married in some states at the age of 14. So, even parts of the definition vary.

Today, in other countries, marriage is still defined as ownership of the female. Because it is not this way in other countries, it also shows that marriage has been already redefined.

Also, some societies still define marriage as forced and/or arranged.

All of these illustrate that there is no one definition that everybody follows for marriage. Not even love is the common denominator.

The point is that societies are dynamic and changing. Just because you say that your common sense tells you something, simply means that it’s not right for you. It doesn’t mean that it’s not right for someone else.

That’s what most of this boils down to. Gays want to get married just like anyone else. But, some try to force their beliefs on others. They don’t want to recognize that just because something isn’t right for them, that it may be right for someone else.

I follow your logic about superheroes. But, I’m not clear as to why you include it. It seems to be counterproductive to your argument. It’s almost is if you are saying that 1 woman married to 1 man should be allowed to scoff at others that would like to be married; denying others marriage just so they can feel special.

You mention if gays could get married, it would be a slippery slope for bestiality folks and the pedophiles wanting their rights too. But, look around. If they wanted to marry, they would already be demanding their rights. I don't see children or horses lining up, protesting.

You have also failed to mention that the latest US census shows that less than 50% of American households are legally married couples. It doesn’t mean that they don’t exist or that they are less loving or less of a family. It simply means that they are not married - gay or not.

In conclusion, the world is an evolving place, whether you want to admit it or not. Plants evolve, animals evolve, the earth itself evolves and so do human societies, which includes the notion of marriage.

You shouldn’t be the protector of what’s right or wrong for me. You should be the defender for what is right or wrong for you or those that cannot defend their selves.

 

You mention “Gay is not inborn, it's a path that you choose and one that
you're happy with, and everyone should respect that.”

Gay is inborn in some people and animals, just as straight is inborn. Did you wake up one day and say to yourself, “I better decide if I’m gay or straight”? Did you weigh all of the pros and cons before deciding? How long did you struggle with your decision.

You probably didn’t do any of that. You probably were straight without thought, just as others are gay. It’s just the way people are.

You also mention “Parents have too much influence on the values of the children.” This is true. But, look at the facts. Statistically, parents cannot influence their children to be straight just as gay parents cannot influence their children to be gay. However, gay parents probably try to influence their children to think and act with acceptance.

You should try to make friends with a few gay people. You’ll find that you might have a tainted view of the world.

 

Marriage and love are not about sex. It’s about commitment.

 

Ouch. What pain you must feel. I’m sorry to read that you have such a tainted view of gay people.

Check out the works of these gay people (they aren’t so bad):

Clive Barker (novelist, author, producer, director)
Billy Bean (baseball player)
Raymond Burr (actor)
George Washington Carver (inventor)
Greg Louganis (swimmer)
Harvey Milk (politician)
Henri III (king of france)
Leonardo Da Vinci (artist)

Gay people have gone though centuries of abuse in countries all over the world. Don’t forget Nazi Germany put gays in death camps.

No people should have to suffer at all to have rights.

 

I’m not sure where you’re coming form.

A lot of gay people have lives, hobbies, jobs, cars, houses, family and friends. All of these are huge commitments.

And they want the commitment to be married.

 

Good points. Seems your opinion is more for than against.

 

Sorry to read that you’re another person that cannot think on their own and rely upon what someone else wrote.

You seem to be someone that wants to force what they believe upon others.

 

Interesting! I don’t think I’ve ever come across this argument before. Very original!

Unfortunately, “divorce, dividing assets, alimony, and child support” are really not supposed to be biased.

But times have changed. The reality is that people get divorced at a very high rate. Assets are now being divided by who had what before the marriage and who earned what during the marriage. Alimony is almost never given now. And child support is now leaning towards what is in the best interest of the child – not whether they should be with a mom.

Sit in divorce court a while and find out what is real. Not what you’ve come to know though TV.

 

My opinion is that your argument should be everyone’s.

If everybody took care of their own life and let Joe worry about kissing Mike, then everybody would be happy.

But, people want to force their beliefs upon others.

 

Christianity did not originate marriage. It was around long before Christianity.

Marriage is simply a vow of commitment.

What should it matter to you as to who is getting married or why?

 

Most of your arguments rely upon your saying that morals came from religion.

But, religion came from people.

People make decisions based upon what they think is right or wrong.

But, just because something isn’t right for you, doesn’t mean that it’s not right for someone else.

Sorry that you don’t want to accept this simple fact.

 

There is no one definition of marriage.

In the USA it wasn’t that long ago that marriage was defined in
legal terms. Then blacks were freed from slavery and created a
new threat. So, marriage was redefined to make it illegal for
blacks to marry whites. Then it was redefined again to allow it
(by dropping the laws that made it illegal).

In the USA (as well as other parts of the world) there are some
religions, such as the Mormons, that define marriage with more
than one partner.

Don’t forget that the age of consent for marriage varies from
state to state. You can already get legally married in some
states at the age of 14. So, even parts of the definition vary.

Today, in other countries, marriage is still defined as ownership
of the female. Because it is not this way in other countries, it
also shows that marriage has been already redefined.

Also, some societies still define marriage as forced and/or
arranged.

All of these illustrate that there is no one definition that
everybody follows for marriage. Not even love is the common
denominator.

The point is that societies are dynamic and changing. Just
because you say that your common sense tells you something,
simply means that it’s not right for you. It doesn’t mean that
it’s not right for someone else.

 

Marriage did not originate from the Bible. It was around long before.

Sorry to read that you cannot think on your own and you rely upon what someone else wrote.

Just because it isn’t right for you, doesn’t mean it isn’t right for others.

 

Laws are only partly derived from what people believe to be right or wrong.

Not everything people believe is right or wrong is in law.

Actually, most laws are now derived for the common good.

Just because it isn’t right for you, doesn’t mean that it isn’t right for someone else.

 

This is simple. Most people don’t want to look at the obvious.

Just because you may feel that it’s wrong for you, doesn’t mean that it’s wrong for someone else.

Gay people let other people marry who they want. Why can’t you?

You shouldn’t be the protector of what’s right or wrong for me. You should be the defender for what is right or wrong for you or those that cannot defend their self.

 

"living the life" because we can't get married? A heterosexual couple can do the same thing by simply not getting married.

 

Where do you point the origin of marriage then?

Now to be more specific, where did the origin of marriage come from in the US?

As far as why it matters to me, it matters because based on my beliefs homosexuality is a sin. While people will continue practicing it despite what I think, I do not feel that a sin should be rewarded with the benefits of marriage. I also do not want the idea of marriage to become diluted even further. I will already have to explain to my kids why so many people get married/divorced multiple times and why people get married for just a day or two, I really don't want to have to explain to them why two guys or two girls are getting married.

Another question for you though, if marriage is about a vow of commitment, then why does it matter to you whether homosexuals can marry? I have made vows of commitment multiple times for various things and didn't require a legal institution.

 

OK.

To help determine the origin of marriage, we have to look at the written word itself. In our current and known societies, the Chinese have kept the best written records that predate the writing of the Bible.

Early on, Chinese couples were married in what is called an extra-clan marriage, or better known as antithetic marriage. This occurred during the New Stone Age, around 5000 BC.

Traditional Chinese marriage became a custom between 402-221 B.C.

Also, historically, many societies have allowed some form of polygamy. Europe, the United States and Canada have defined themselves as monogamous cultures. This came from Germanic cultural traditions, Christianity, and mandate of the Roman Law. However, Roman Law permitted prostitution, concubinage, and sexual access to slaves.

So, marriage of some kind is found in virtually every society throughout time and it’s difficult to pinpoint its exact origin. But, it is very clear that it existed long before Christianity was around. And it wasn’t until recently that it worked its way into Western and European law.

I probably won’t be able to change your mind about your belief that homosexuality is a sin. However, you do have to face the reality that it is a documented occurrence in over 211 species of mammals, 14 species of birds, 15 species fish, 32 species of other vertebrates and 70 species of insects and other invertebrates.

Also there are many religions that do allow gay marriage, including some sects of Christianity.

I’m sorry that you do not want to tell your children why some gays get married and why some couples get divorced in as little as a few hours of marriage. But, doing what we must do versus doing what we like to do is what makes us adults. Then again, if you don’t tell your children, they don’t stop learning, they’ll learn on their own from others.

Why does it matter to me if gays can get married? It’s simple. People do not like to be segregated, teased, taunted, humiliated or otherwise hurt. It’s hurtful when people point you out and then say you can or cannot do things because upon some trait. Didn’t you go to history class in school? The Jews didn’t like it in Nazi Germany. The Blacks didn’t like it when they had to sit in the back of the bus. Women didn’t like it when they couldn’t vote. People didn’t like it when blacks and whites couldn’t marry. People didn’t like it when they couldn’t drink alcohol.

We had laws about those things. Do you really believe that those laws were for (1) the benefit of society or (2) for religious purposes? Read your history. There were citations on both sides. But, that argument didn’t matter. Eventually, those things became some of the worst incidences in modern history.

Marriage is also about such things as survivorship, health insurance benefits, life insurance and seeing a loved one in a hospital. Current laws prohibit unmarried people from these things.

But, in spite of all of this, it still boils down to one thing. It’s wrong for you. So, you want to force your beliefs upon others.

So, don’t be the protector of what is right or wrong for me. But, be the defender of what is right or wrong for you and those that cannot defend their self.

 

So you also believe that the man is the head of the family?

That marriage is for the purpose of procreation?

If so when should we force people to annual their childless marriages?

You speak of right and wrong, according to your view any childless marriage should be null and void after a set period of time.

 

What about the people before the Bible was written, or who do not believe in the book.

Marriage was created long before the bible.

 

The legal system is not.

Why dont you visit the SCB and you will note.

The Ten Commandments Stones are blank, are set in a historical setting that confirms with the Lemon Test.

Read the Lemon Test and then tell me about religious icons on the building.

 

You have seen through my attempt at polite speech.
I agree about the content of the original argument. I also agree that it has nothing to do with the gender of those involved.
But I'll go one further - I don't think that any statistics on AIDS transmission should have an impact on discussions of gay marriage.

 

"If being homosexual was natural then there would only be possibly 6 people on the earth...meaning none of the people making up these sarcastic remakes would be around....heck I wouldn't be around "


I think you have misunderstood "homosexuality is natural" as "heterosexuality is not natural". Please explain why there must be only one way.




BTW: among the most sarcastic comments here.

 

If you could only make everyone believe in your Bible, then you might have some reason to enforce what it says. The thing about this argument though is not "I would marry or gay person", or even "I'd approve of a gay marriage".

What we are debating s whether allowing gay marriage is right or wrong. As long as there are benefits given to spouses by governments, then denying those benefits is just discrimination.

 

Chasbas,
You have done a very good job of explaining your position and I respect you for it.

For clarification, I have absolutely no personal problem with anyone who is homosexual. As mentioned before, I believe it is a sin, but on that same note I am a sinner as well and therefore do not judge anybody based on that but on who they are as a person and what they do with their life. I have had friends that were homosexual and family members as well. I treat them no differently than anyone else, they have different views than I do and make different choices.

There was one part of your response that I have to question. It is a common rebuttal to anyone who opposes gay marriage and that is the comparision between homosexuals and blacks.

The argument has one major assumption and that is people who use it believe that homosexuals are born that way and have no choice in the matter, that it is purely biological and hardcoded into your DNA. I do not believe this is the case and have yet to see any hard evidences to the contrary. I have seen studies done that suggest this, but nothing definitive. I beleive it is a chocie that people make, many have come out of the closet only later to decide that heterosexuality is what they prefer (see Anne Heche). Some might argue that this is the religious right pushing them that way and for many you would be right, but until this argument is settled I think comparing the homosexual's rights with civil rights is a little too much. Are we now going to have laws in place that force homosexuals into the workforce? Will the NBA now have to have X number of homosexual coaches each year? Comparing the homosexual issue with civil rights starts down a very slippery slope and anyone who decides to take that path should be careful before doing so.

Regarding how I will talk to my children about homosexuality. Inevitably, I will have to tell them the truth of the matter and based on the Bible it is a sin and that the government which was founded on many Christian values chose to ignore this one if homosexual's are allowed to marry one day.

 

You are correct. I do not believe that the Bible is an accurate or complete accounting of history. Every known religion has two things in common. They explain the unexplainable (such as the skies/heavens, oceans, the beginning of the world, the end of world and other things people had no explanation) and how to get along with each other. Religions vary widely as to the beginning of humans. So, if you don’t believe in science, how do you know which religion is correct about the beginning of humans? If it is questionable as to which religion is correct about the beginning of time, it also leads to the possibility that science is correct. Leaving that secondary debate, even Genesis does not mention that Adam and Eve were married.

You are also correct to say that there is no definitive evidence that anyone made a conscious decision to be gay, if they were born that way or if other factors are involved. There are two things we can point to for clarification. First, there are over 6 billion humans on Earth. It is estimated that between 1% to 10% are gay. That is 60 to 600 million people are gay. Only one to two hundred claim that they weren’t born that way or that they were able to change their sexuality. That leaves most others stating that they were born that way, it was the earliest feelings of attraction they can recall or they started dealing with it later in life but there were always signs of it. Second we look to the documented cases of homosexual/bisexual behavior within hundreds of species of other animals.

All of this points heavily to the idea that it is indeed a natural occurrence.

But, regardless of natural occurrence or not, you believe it is a sin. OK. I respect your belief for the Bible and that homosexuality is a sin. But, others don’t.

You state “… comparing the homosexual plight to Jews during the Holocaust is going a bit too far.” Not really. Please don’t forget that during that very same holocaust that the Jewish were not the only class of people being persecuted. Gay people were forced to wear pink triangles to identify them. They too were rounded up and placed in the same death camps to be executed. Others to be executed were the mentally ill and the disabled.

Do a little more digging into history and you can find in modern history where being gay in England often resulted in a punishment of life in prison breaking rocks.

You also state “No authority is abusing homosexuals and if it ever happens I will be one of the first denouncing them for their actions and defending homosexuals.” Yet Christianity is trying very hard to abuse homosexuals by denying rights, denying privileges, attempting to make it illegal, leading protests and attempting to discredit it wherever possible. And THAT thinking is the slippery slope that very slowly, but eventually lead the Jewish, gays, physically disabled and the mentally ill to be executed.

I meant it quite literally when I wrote “don't be the protector of what is right or wrong for me. But, be the defender of what is right or wrong for you...” It means that it understandable that you believe that being gay is a sin and that it is wrong. But, I mean for you to understand that it is a sin and wrong, for YOU. It is not a sin or wrong for a huge amount of other people. And that you should stop trying to force what you believe is right or wrong upon others (which seems to be the number one complaint against Christians in the United States).

I also wrote “…and those that cannot defend their self” to mean quite literally those that are forced against their will or people that cannot make a decision.

As far as future generations, they too deserve the same right to decide as to what is right or wrong for them.

 

If you can't exclude religion from the argument, why not ban judges and ship's captains from being able to legally perform marriages.

I have two friends who are legally able to perform marriage ceremonies through ordainments they got through a web site. How "holy" is that?

There's not a church in this country that would or could be forced to marry homosexuals if they don't want to (separation of church and state works both ways, donchaknow), so that argument falls flat.

 

LOL that is so funny. Why would the butthole be on the front part of the body?

 

So you get your morals from Disney- where "All good teenagers take off their clothes?" (aladdin)

If you want marriage to be special then keep it religous and out of the government.

 

It *is* okay to go “blatantly against what is written in the bible”. That's because this is America, where we have freedom of religion and freedom *from* religion. Just because you are a Christian doesn't mean you get to tell people how they can use words, by the way. You don't even have the last word on the bible – the Jews got there first.

“Marriage” is *not* solely a religious word. As has been explained countless times before, the ritual of marriage began way before Judaism (and therefore Christianity). It was initially a financial and political transaction, and had nothing to do with love. Even now there are many religious groups that use marriage for those purposes, eschewing “love” in favor of religious laws.

Legal marriage, which is what is under discussion here, *is* a basic right to every citizen. You went to a pastor, but all you *had* to do was go to city hall, where your basic right can be exercised. For proof that this is a basic civil right, consider this example: a man and a woman go to city hall to get married and the clerk tells them that because one of them is black and the other is white, they are not permitted to legally marry. This *was* the law 50 years ago, and it was vigorously defended by religious and legal scholars, until finally that law was overturned and the civil right to marriage was extended to everyone regardless of their race.

However it was not extended to everyone regardless of their sex. *That* is what this issue is about.

Your pastor has the right to refuse to marry you, but the city clerk does not (except under very specific circumstances, like being related too closely). However the city clerk is not allowed to marry my and my partner of 10 years, despite the 3 children we raise and our intermingled finances. That is the issue, and it is a very personal one.

 

“First of all folks the term marriage is a sacrement [sic] from GOD through the Holy Bible”

We are not talking about your particular religion's stance on marriage (let me guess: Christianity?). We are talking about legal marriage, which has nothing to do with your bible.

“...which by the way, forbids homosexual behavior.”

This is a different argument, but since you brought it up: your bible also forbids eating seafood and wearing mixed fabrics. And demands death as punishment for those sins, by the way. Unless you're picking and choosing god's laws, you could be in big trouble...

“Who is marrying these people? Priests, Ministers, Pastors. If so,they have forgotten what's in their Bible.”

No, we're talking about legal marriage, not religious marriage. And you only mentioned Christian religions – there are plenty of Jewish marriages, Muslim marriages, etc.

“Oh, I forgot judges are marrying them.”

No, you didn't forget.

“The same judges that tell us to place our hands on the Bible and promise to tell the truth the
whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you GOD.”

That's not true. Have you been to court lately?

“Why call it MARRIAGE. Just call it something else and it won't stir up so much controversy.”

I don't care what you call it as long as you call yours the same thing (legally, of course – I would never tell you what to do religiously). I won't accept “separate but equal” even if it were possible.

[misogynistic, homophobic, sexist rant deleted]

Not much for the old “melting pot” philosophy, are you? You sure have some old school ideas when it comes to fairness and equality. If it were 1950 I bet I'd know where you'd stand on race issues, or in 1910 on women's issues. No matter. Society will drag you forward along with everyone else, eventually.

 

Being gay is a choice? So I guess somewhere along the way you made a conscious "decision" to be attracted to members of the opposite sex. Is that right or did it just naturally evolve for you? Honestly, have you ever heard any person say that sexual preference was a decision they made?

And if it's a choice, how do you explain people who hate themselves for being gay like Rev. Ted Haggard who tried to go to rehab to kick himself of being homosexual? If this was a choice, couldn't he just decide to be straight?

And you say gays are entitled to every privilege the rest of us are and then you suggest that being gay would negatively effect the "values" of a child, so that shouldn't be allowed. Obviously you don't truly respect homosexuals, you retain some kind of moral judgment of them and think that their sexual preference effects their ability to parent and teach decent values to their children.

You're basically saying that gayness can rub off and since it's wrong, we shouldn't let them raise children. So I guess Dick Cheney and his wife must have exposed their daughter to lesbianism at some point - that's the only explanation since it's a choice and parents influence their children's "values" right?

 

Marriage isn't and never has been, in any culture, about love. It's a contractual agreement mainly designed to preserve property, which incidentally can provide a more stable environment in which to rear offspring.

Arranged marriages have been far more common than those "for love" because of the property issues. If marriage were primarily about "love" then it would never have been bound up with so many different laws.

As it is primarily about contractual agreements, there's no justification for reserving it for any particular class of people. Religion has no place in the matter, and the only place government should have is that which it has with regard to any OTHER civil contract.

That said, the gender of the people who enter into a marriage contract should be irrelevant. And, yes, the number of people who enter into such a contract should be irrelevant.

Any laws that pertain to marriage as anything but a civil contract should be removed immediately.

Issues pertaining to the welfare of children should be completely separate, as they really have nothing to do with marriage but are of legitimate concern to society. We all know that the presumption that a woman's child was fathered by her legal husband is ridiculous. All laws that differentiate between children born in and out of wedlock would be removed from the books. Old-fashioned laws that tie children to marriage treat children as a form of property/chattel.

DNA testing at birth should be mandatory for all children, in order to establish parentage as a fact. Lying about the parentage of a child on a birth certificate should be a felony, with guaranteed prosecution. Not knowing who the father is should only be acceptable in cases of reported rape.

That takes care of society's true areas of concern while making the whole gay marriage argument moot.

 

It's called satire, dear.

 

People in Africa spread HIV a lot more than homosexuals.

Oh no, now you're racist.

Plus, gay marriage would actually lead to gay people saving themselves for marriage (which, um, they can't do now), which would mean they wouldn't be able to spread AIDS (unless they were born HIV positive).

 

This comment is a joke, right?

You are the person who writes volumes citing philosophers at length, touts his own debating skills ad nausuem, and prefers taking on esoteric topics that have nothing to do with reality. And *this* is your response to a serious debate about gay marriage?

You may know how to quote philosophers who are much smarter than you, but apparently you know absolutely nothing about homosexuality, its causes, its history, and the attempt to extend simple civil rights to a despised minority.

If you bigots would keep your mouths shut there would be a lot less hatred in the world.

Oh, and for the record, your arguments in this post suck. The cause of homosexuality is hotly debated but not a single serious researcher believes it is "overly protective parents." If you have some evidence to support that position, please post it. Abuse can cause people to divert their normal sexual preferences, but homosexuals have the same percentages of sexual abuse as heterosexuals. The vast majority of homosexuals do not have any abuse in their background. Finally, "liberal wakoness [sic]" (should that word be "weakness" or "wackiness"?) doesn't really explain why homosexuality has existed since the beginning of recorded history. Unless of course you're claiming that "liberalism" as defined by Republicans has existed since the beginning of civilization, which would be an interesting argument. Maybe Rush will cover that for you and you'll be able to make such an argument.

As to your last statement, I don't think the gays in Germany were "calling attention to themselves" when Hitler rounded them up and killed them. I don't think the gays in Iraq right now are being rounded up and killed by the elected government of that country (another benefit of freedom thanks to Mr. Bush) because they are "calling attention to themselves."

Yours is truly one of the sickest posts I have seen in my short time on this board.

 

Marriage is about the bonding of two human beings, just that the Bible talked about it being a bonding of a man and a woman (ie. Adam and Eve). Yes, the intention of a marriage is to start a family. But, we know that family doesn't have to be blood-related, hence, the adopted child is also considered a part of the family, right? People can say that gay is morally wrong, that it's against the Bible/religion, and that it spreads AIDS. Well, the Bible also talked about no sex before marriage. So, does that mean we should start checking for people's marriage licenses before selling condoms and also whenever a couple (man + woman) check into a single hotel room (just in case they might have planned to have sex)? We all know that there are many ways to spread AIDS, so why blame the gay men? I am sure that the ones who got infected and brought it back home after a sex-trip to other countries are not just gay men, probably the majority are straight-men. So it call comes back to "why get married" - because two humans are in love and are ready to spend the rest of their lives together, tackling all obstacles as one unit, and hoping to carry on that love they share and their combined life experiences via a network called 'family'. Who cares if it's between two men, two women or a man+woman...if this is what they are willing and ready for it, why deny them?

 

"in courts they swear on the bible"

False.

"in god we trust"

Doesn't endorse any specific religion. Any attempt to extract a common philosophy from all possible religions and inject it into common law would be A) absurd, and B) against the specific instructions of the Founding Fathers not to allow religious principles to determine law.

Yours is a typical attempt to back-justify your prejudices by misinterpreting and misrepresenting facts. Just say it: you don't like homosexuals and you don't want them to share in the same human right (to marry) you grant criminals, people with below-average intelligence, people who use their right 20 times, people who marry someone 50 years older/younger than themselves, etc. That's okay - you have every right to be a bigot. Just say it instead of trying to justify it.

 

Easy to make that argument as a heterosexual, whose rights to marriage with someone you love are fully recognized by law. Not so much for the guy who can't see his dying husband in the hospital because he's not technically family... And yes, this DOES happen... not to mention the multitude other rights gay couples are denied by law.

Fifty years ago, would you be standing there making the same argument against interracial marriage? Uh oh, slippery slope! Maybe we should redefine it the way it used to be: No divorce, and the woman is nothing but property. It's the only way to defend the institution of marriage against its slow slide into the depths of depravity!

 

I believe that everyone has a right to be happy. I have two best friends who are gay, one is female and the other is male. I have no problem being around them as well as when they are with their partners. I believe that gay people have every right to get married just as I had the right to get married to my husband. EVERYONE has the right to love who they want to love and even if they are gay they should be able to get married just like people who are straight.

 

OK. For thousands of years of recorded human history slavery was ok, do you think that shouldn't have been stopped?

 

First off...How can you tell an American that they can not get married to the one person that they love and want to spend the rest of their life with...Were sopposed to be the Free Country!...Its the same thing as telling a straight person that they cant get married to the person they love because they have purple hair...its just not right...

 

About the movie caption...
"superheros" would be called somthing different, just like how some people are "strait" and some are "gay".

 

Always an interesting thing when people claim being homosexual is a choice. However, I think we'd all agree that heterosexuality was never something anyone consciously chose, so then why (with all the bigotry and hatred out there) would anyone simply "choose" to have a certain sexual preference?

I also find it interesting that you think that homosexuals somehow innately have a poor influence on a child. Do you think "they gay" rubs off on children? Do you think being attracted to someone of the opposite sex means you're more inclined to teach your children about crime?

Ultimately "you" have some idea in your head about how people "should" behave and you'd like to impose restrictions on a group of people who feel otherwise. The same arguments were made about blacks in the sixties and about women long before that. Those were times our society judged a group of people for what they were, which is what you're doing now. You're saying a particular person deserves less than you, because they are somehow inferior or "wrong" But of course this stems from your belief that these are actually heterosexuals who are making an immoral choice to be "gay"

 

You sure do hang around a lot of these "gay" people, huh?

 

Ummm.... Illegalizing gay marriage will just promote poor treatment to different sexual orientations. Religion is an opinion and shouldn't be a reason not to pursue gay marriage.

 

I have lots of gay friends. I'm all for it!
People should stop being so against it. People can't help it. I've watched shows about it and I can really see how gay people feel.. when people are looking at them and some of them feel like they are being watched. It is just not right. We are all human.

 

If human existence depended on it then obviously wrong, but it doesnt as of this writing. Procreation is at the foundation of our most primordial necessities to persist and survive. However...

It is right, for sake of this arguments sake as I do not believe that was the basis of this question which I will answer from a social/moral standpoint:
I am all for whatever two consenting adults with the mental capacity to make their own decisions want to do with their own lives. Call it what you want civil union, tax filing change until death do us part, marriage, financial arrangement, lifelong commitment, eternal bliss.

Religion, lots of them, who is right? so why should the catholic church prevent a marriage under a god the couple may not even worship, even if they are catholic. What I mean is that I dont believe a just and loving god will damn anyone who leads a righteous life.

for the record I am Catholic and I am not gay. One is not forced to be alone for their entire life and be celibate, also you are not forced to be with someone of the same sex and have tons of it. So why then do we impose the denial of two people to be with each other more than anything else. When I get married it would be with someone I would die for and rather die than be without, so I figure that gay or not love is love.

-FatherKnowledge (no catholic pun intended, nickname from my punk a$$ friends)

 

Poor argument. Why is religion stamped out on the national currency?
This is against the First Amendment and Thomas Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state". Even Theodore Roosevelt was against it. Putting something on the money does not make it true. It doesn't change the evidence at all.

 

And you are a dumb ass. Aids is not linked to one specific group and Lesbians have the lowest rate of aids. You go ahead with your straight life thinking that you are okay because your not gay and when you end up getting aids from your STRAIGHT GIRLFRIEND I am going to laugh my ass off. You get Aids from unprotected sex...did you wear a condom last time?

 

Ok, if your argument is to convince anyone, you should put forth a reason backing up your statement. If your only reason is because thats what it is, you are merely invoking a tautology, which is logically fallacious. In the realm of debate it pretty much invalidates your point. So...marriage= between a man and a woman? k, prove it :)

or...as the website says...convince me

Your statement only serves to preach to the chior..those who believe as you do agree, those who dont, dont, and those who are on the fence would be unswayed one way or the other by your argument.

 

The social system of European monogamy is proved to be derived from the ancient Greeks and Romans (especially from the latter), by the early histories of the nations of Europe, and by an uninterrupted descent of traditional customs from them to our own times. It
is one of those pagan abominations which we have inherited,
which the Roman Church has sanctioned and confirmed.

Actually they can call it marriage because the church took it from an older religion like it has in so many other instances.

 

What do you say about gays and lesbians who have their own children?
Gay marriage would protect children of gay couples, especially if one of the parents happens to fall ill or die. The children would have access to social security benefits, estate claims, etc… Gay couples have children, either together (with assistance) or from previous relationships and adoption.
By allowing these couples to marry legally, they can protect their children (and provide a good example of a committed relationship). A surviving partner has clear legal rights, responsibilities and commitments to the children they have a relationship with. Outside family members can't come in and attempt to take the children away from their surviving parent.
Being gay does not take away the ability to be a good loving parent. There are plenty of hetero parents who should not be allowed to be parents but no one holds a litmus test up for them before they are allowed to reproduce.
People should respect that just because they hold a certain value, doesn't give them the right to expect everyone share that value and live by it. Live and let live

 

The Xindou study is a classic example of the abuse of a scientific study to score political points. Here is a web site that explains why the "conclusions" sabrejimmy quoted are nonsense:

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/Articles/000,003.htm

In summary, the study's purpose was to examine the transmission of AIDS. In order to do this the study deliberately EXCLUDED monogamous gay couples. To use a study that EXCLUDED monogamous gay couples in order to demonstrate that AIDS transmission is highest among "partnered" gay couples is an outright lie. Too bad people like sabrejimmy traffic only in such lies.

 

many times throughout history homosexuality has been accepted: from africa, in all three americas, east, south, and central asia, middle east, throughout Europe and the south pacific. In aincient greece it was wide spread alothough there were influential people that didnt approve (even plato labelled it "against nature") however, the majority morality allowed it, making it right.

It wasnt until the advent of Christianity that the major taboos formed. Where do the basis of many of our laws come from, from religious state laws.

In many of the regions stated above, it was the ruling power that accepted the practices and only changed when a new ruling power (or religious view point) was introduced - thereby making it illegal or immoral.

In the end it is the state and the ruling class that decide what is right and what is wrong...the problem is that today's morality is so skewed that we can no longer trust the ruling class.

 

To me it is nobodys business what people want to do with their lives. If you are gay and are religious and want to get married through the church, you should be able to. I am catholic and I believe in God but I think the catholic church is messed up in more ways than one. They do not allow gay marriage but some of our preists are molesting children? I dont think that is in the bible. Also, the sacredness of marriage these days means nothing. So many people get divorced no a days and in the catholic church divorce is a huge no no. So what does it matter if two gay people in love want to get married through the church?

 

If two consenting adults are attracted to each other and want to spend their lives with each other, it should be NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.

 

who are we to say that marriage between anybody is wrong. we live in a world that does not allow teaching religion in schools; however people are quick to say that gay marriage is wrong because the bible says so, it does not make sense. we cant say its wrong to teach religion in schools, but then say because of religious resons two people of the same sex can not get married! people should be able to marry whomever they want!!!!!!

 

Humans should have the right to do what they please during their short, meaningless lives..

 

How can anyone say that Gay Marriage is Wrong. It is a personal choice that is made from personal beliefs so who are we to say that gay couples do not have the right to enjoy all of the benefits that straight couples do?

 

You're entitled to believing gay marriage is wrong. What you're not entitled to do is impose that belief on others. Your religion is not the basis for law. Marriage is not a Christian invention, and in fact it predates most religions. In ancient societies it was used to guarantee property rights and protect bloodlines.

And if you really know your history you'd know that this country was founded because of people's desire to be able to freely practice any religion in their own fashion. It was around the time of the English Civil War that they were motivated to move to this land and declare independence. This is the reason that there is a clear separation of church and state and the reason that laws are not drafted by the church as was the case in England.

Also, consider the fact that a marriage in the United States is not recognized unless you get a marriage license from the state. This is not a Christian document. So even if a man and woman (in today's law) who aren't of your faith wish to get married, they can. And even if you have a Christian ceremony you're not married according to the law until you go to city hall and get your license.

So you're entitled to your beliefs, but religions don't make laws in this country and never have. And thank God for that. One last thing. Did you know that when women and blacks were fighting for their right to vote, people were vocally against it for the very same reasons? Shocking in today's standards, but it's an example of how perspectives change over time.

 

Well the thing is that evolution (you chose to talk it) is not something dictated by the laws of the United States. If it were, then I imagine dumb people and those who choose to stay in poor health would be executed or put away to prevent them from spoiling the gene pool as we evolve. So your argument here is an empty one. If we started making laws to prevent behavior that would hinder evolution we'd have a lot of changes to make. For example a sterile man, barren woman, or even a person who wishes to stay single and not have kids can't reproduce either. But laws aren't made to correct that.

Furthermore, there are plenty of children up for adoption in this country, so that this isn't really an issue. And I have to say, your statement that "you have gay friends" is funny. I'd hear the same thing from people when I lived in the south as a precursor to some racist comment. It's just a way to justify what you're about to say. And saying that you "disagree with their beliefs" is suggesting that they've chosen their sexual orientation the way I chose my car or religion. I think if you speak honestly with your "friends" you'll find that isn't the case.

 

In court you are not required to swear on the bible. You can be placed under oath without that practice. Having "In God We Trust" on our money is an influence. The same way there are plenty of Pagan influences on that same money. The pyramid for example. Or the fact that our government recognizes several Pagan holidays. Not all religions or even all Christians believe that homosexuality is "intolerable" - This country was founded because people wished to have the freedom to practice any religion in any fashion they chose. It's a country of laws. Currently the law states marriage is between a man and woman. This discussion is about changing that to be fair. I don't see how religions have anything to do with this. Just like we didn't consult Jesus or Buddah when we gave blacks or women the right to vote.

 

Your analogy is completely flawed. Straight people have no special abilities (as do doctors) that give them special privileges (like the right to operate on people).

Gay people can't become straight, just as straight people can't become gay. Unless you're saying *you* personally *might* turn gay...

The proper analogy is a simple one from reality: a mere 50 years ago it was illegal (and considered immoral, unnatural, and all the other excuses made on this side of the argument) for blacks to marry whites. The *exact same arguments* made then are now being used to justify preventing gay people from marrying. *That* is a proper analogy, and the obvious conclusion is that prohibiting such marriage is a mistake.

 

From whence do you get your grave predictions? I see no one talking about passing laws demanding any of the things you portend. In fact, in Massachusetts where gay marriage is legal and has been for years, none of these things have come to pass. I ask again, how can you make "predictions" that are at odds with the actual facts?

Courts can decide anything a court wants to decide. They used to decide children belonged with the mother no matter what the mother did. Now they sometimes (though not often) side with the father. Under no circumstances would a judge ever be required to place a child in a home that that judge thought was inappropriate. If you think this will happen, check out Massachusetts and any of the many countries that now permit marriage between homosexuals. None of those places back up your baseless prediction.

Again.

 

You are wrong. "Gays" are not defined by "beliefs", so your statement that you don't agree with "their beliefs" makes no sense. Gays are defined as being sexually attracted to their own sex. There is no "belief" involved in that. You either are or are not attracted to one sex or the other. No "belief" is necessary.

You proudly exclaim that "[gays] cannot reproduce!" as if you are the first person to think of that. So what? Where in the marriage laws is it written that a married couple *must* reproduce? What about sterile people, old people, people with diseases who don't want to die while raising children, and people who simply choose not to have children? Do you deny them the right to marry too?

We don't need more population on the earth - there are plenty of straight people who reproduce already. On top of that, if gay people *wanted* to reproduce they could do so in an instant. We could pretend to be straight, go out and impregnate women or have straight mens' babies, and produce plenty of progeny. Your argument fails on all grounds.

I won't bother with your argument about monkeys because the rest of your arguments have been corrected, as you requested.

 

If you are telling the truth then you should abide by *all* Christian beliefs, not just the ones you like. That is, you should shun people who wear mixed cloths, stone to death people who trangress your laws, and oh yes, you would have to dissolve the Constitution and reform a new country based on religion first.

Funny how we hate countries that do that with other religions, say Islam, and laugh at their funny traditions and are shocked by their religious punishments, but then hear calls from fundamentalists to do the same thing in this country.

Thank god for the Constitution!

 

Who on earth is trying to "overrun" you? How exactly does my marriage affect you? How would you even know I was married?

If I walk down the street with my husband and my family, 2 men and 3 little girls, how exactly would it disturb you? Would you know if we were married or not? How? How would such knowledge affect you?

 

I stand corrected, you didn't say friends. And it's clear from what you've written that you indeed don't have any gay friends. If you did I think you'd realize that they don't have beliefs about being gay anymore than you have a belief about being straight. I think you'd discover it's not a choice.

However, being brown skinned doesn't mean you can't or wouldn't be racist. I've met plenty of people who are both. Nonetheless I wasn't saying you were racist. It was an example about how some people talk, used to make a point.

Now to say gay people believe in evolution as a science is a pretty broad generalization. The gay friends I have are all fairly devout in various religions. I don't know if they believe in evolution or not specifically, but to lump them all into that statement further shows your ignorance on who gay people really are and what they are like.

As for the laws, I was talking in context of the US since this is one of the laws that is currently in question. So you can disregard that point as it doesn't apply to you.

But I'm curious. Why exactly do "you" believe gay marriage is wrong. So far you've used an example from a scientific theory that you don't believe in to make a point. What about you? Do you have a reason to think gay marriage is actually wrong? And do you think it should be stopped or prevented?

 

Well that's great if you're a Christian and you believe those stories are to be taken literally. I mean just look at your chosen example. The story of Adam & Eve. If you take that story to be a literal account of what took place then at some point incest had to be rampant in order for the population of the world to grow to what it has become.

Also, religion didn't create marriage. I know all of you who are against gay marriage because you think your god hates it bring this up, but marriage was created so families could expand their estates through these unions between children.

And (even thought it's been said many times in this debate) if the ability to conceive a child was somehow the litmus test for marriage then sterile couples wouldn't be allowed to marry either. Also, just because you believe it's a sin to feel the way they do, doesn't mean it is. Fortunately we have millions of rational people who don't believe that being attracted to someone of the same sex is somehow a horrible offense to some jealous and hateful god floating in the sky with a white beard.

Also remember, it's not as though allowing gay marriage means that everyone is suddenly gay and there's "no" reproduction. It's not as if these people will switch to being straight if gay marriage isn't allowed. They're not reproducing anyhow and there are plenty of others who are to adequately keep the human race going. So don't worry, somehow we'll make it.

 

Why does it matter? If two people regardless of gender love each other to the point of which the two marry, shouldn't that follow what the bible really teaches us.
All you bible nutjobes by the way are making me sick. The bible teaches love and forgiveness, and lets not forget dont judge others before you judge yourself.

 

First of all, gays have the fundamental right of equal happiness. Second of all, they are still part of society. Third of all, the government would have a better image if we allow the third gender to have the equal right of marriage. Also, it only proves that racism, sexism and hatred is non existent.

 

Sigh...the bible never says gay marrige is a sin, got a problem with it, too bad, evveryone hates the minorities, rejecting them, i'll convince anyone who thinks otherwise...

Before you start, dont talk about the old testiment...and homosexual wanst a word at the time of the new testiment...go figure.

 

I'm not gay, but I have to make a point here, you and many religious people argue that gay couples should not be allowed to get married because its wrong, you don't like it, you don't agree with it...God would not like it... ect ect. God also tells us not to judge. The act of saying that a person is going to hell, is in itself a sin. The act of pretending to understand God and his Will, is also borderline blasphemy. (I am assuming most of these comments are made by Christians) A religious argument against Gay marriage is nearly impossible, because it involves pretending to understand the will, wisdom, and works of God. It is not a Christians job to tell no Christians how it act. Its not your job as a Christians to tell gays they are going to hell, it is however your job to spread the word of God. Try to turn them into Christians? Might be annoying when you show up at my door trying to convert me, but appropriate according to the bible, trying to tell me that various actions I have taken are going to put me in hell, or judging my actions good or bad… Well that’s a sin. Christian religion has no place in this debate, because judging others is a sin. Besides, America is the land of the free, let people do as they please as long as it doesn’t harm anybody else.

 

let me start by saying i feel marriage as an institution is ridiculous and needn't exist, however thats another debate entirely. To me who wishes to get married is wholly irrelevant. Hell i think animals should be allowed to join in holy matrimony as well, it would certainley be an entertaining ceremony. Far more so then any wedding i have ever attended.

 

i believe that people should have the right to marry anyone they want to. and if that means marrying the same sex. then who are we to tell them otherwise.

 

But it adds relevance for me. I vote no gay marriage, because of my faith. my faith has no significance on anyone elses opinion. but it is the reason i say no to gay marriage. I do not shout it from the mountain tops, but it is my belief that it is wrong.

 

I think religious right fight so hard because of the insecurity that they are being outnumbered as more people become more accepting of difference and it threatens their self righteous identity of moral superiority.

 

That is completely incorrect. If anything, gay marriage encourages monogamy, which would help reduce the transmission of the AIDS virus. You are deeply mistaken.

 

The very fact that we are using the term "allow" is the exact embodiment of the argument that decides this for us; we live in a country where everyone is born equal, and in a country that was founded upon the basis of Church being separated from state. That is to say, you can argue till your blue in the face that marriage is sacred, and is a thing between a man and a woman from the very words of God, yet it has nothing to do with why there should be a LAW against it. Laws are created and upheld by government, which if we follow the basis upon which our country was founded, we must assume is an entirely separate and independent entity from religion in any way shape or form.

Be that as it may, I must point out that our country has done a fairly poor job of upholding the idea of our founding fathers (that is, separation of church and state). For instance, God is still mentioned on our currency (a direct example of government), and in the Pledge of Allegiance. But simply because our country allows the mention of God in these two forms, does not mean that it is right; no establishment or individual is perfect, and this simply proves that we are somewhat hypocritical, but NOT correct in banning gay marriage.

This is a fairly complex argument, but I could have just gone with...

It's no one's damn business, except the people it directly concerns; that is to say, if two men would like to get married, then let them do so. Unless one is in direct danger of anal sex somehow literally trampling one's pure, innocent, traditional American-Christian family to death, they have absolutely no right to even open their mouths. It does not concern them.

 

You're an idiot. Aids is everywhere not just the 'gays'. Look at Africa! They aren't all GAY! Far from it.

AND if all gays help spread the aids virus, then technically only gay's would have it. Many straight people have it as well.

Gay1+Gay2 = Gay1+aids and Gay2+aids /= straight+aids

Many people contract AIDS via sharing needles, whores, rapes, bloody cuts, blah blah

You're an idiot.

 

marriage is simply two people who love each other expressing that love and making a commitment, so why can't a man and a man or a woman and a woman who are in love make a commitment? the common argument is that god made a man and a woman, not two men or two women, but really, the point of the bible is that god loves everyone equally! god made men and women, white and black and asian and mexican and so many wonderful forms of diversity! Think about it, is this an issue of religion or society?If the bible still said that god made a man and a woman, but the majority of the population was homosexual or didn't see anything wrong with it, would you change your mind?
Yuuuuuuuup

 

Who gives a f**k about who loves who?
Just let people love who they want to.

 

Is that an argument?

 

This country was built on Christianity. Moreover, It was also built on equality for all. Banning a group from anything because they are different is unequal and against the main principle of this country.

 

gay marriage is hot

 

gay marriage is hot

 

Hello. I am only 9 years, so I will cooperate. I have an uncle that is gay, I have seen boys making out. If we just started to give unnecessary comments about gay marriage, then there will be a whole new generation of racism. Eventually, if we keep telling the government that gay marriage is wrong, they'll listen. Just the reason why I have the right to say, Some governors might even be gay/lesbian. Honestly, everyone always says that you come out of a closet. Well, if people think that gay marriage is wrong, they're going to right back into that closet. And if they do, they will never come back out. So, ladies and gentleman, I think I have rested my argument. Gay marriage is allowed!

 

Equality while preserving public safety. Something tells me that gay marriage does not hurt anyone's safety. Your example is not good because we regulate new citizens because of the threats to national security. That is on the other end of the spectrum and gay marriage is way on the other end.

 

Equality while preserving public safety. Something tells me that gay marriage does not hurt anyone's safety. Your example is not good because we regulate new citizens because of the threats to national security. That is on the other end of the spectrum and gay marriage is way on the other end.

 

There is no person or group of persons on Earth who have the right to restrict who someone can marry. Under the Caste System, it is illegal for a janitor to marry a doctor. Being against Gay or Lesbian marriages is just placing the same. Saying someone can't marry the person they love, because they happen to be of the same sex, is unfair, and cruel.

 

In Court We Thrust....
I don't think Gay Marriage is the answer to an equalization of rights. The best so far has been Domestic Partnership benefits (which, by the way, are made available to same-sex and opposite-sex couples). Perhaps Civil Unions are a close second best answer. The primary argument from the pro-gay marriage side is to allow two individuals, regardless of gender, the right to enjoy the benefits usually flowing from marriage, like ability to make medical decisions on behalf of a loved one, visit ailing partners in ICU, burial and visitation of a deceased partner (not in that order), taxation equal to households in similar economic situations. I raised two children to college age and was unable to claim them as allowances or as dependents on my income taxes because 1) I couldn't adopt them, 2) was not a biological parent, 3) foster parent was not an IRS status allowing one to claim a child you supported at that time. I was the only wage earner and provided 100% of their support for 10 years. I was over taxed and under-paid. Yet, the local school systems did not see the kids as eligible for reduced or free school lunches because... of my status as a person living in the household with them and because I made just above poverty level salary - just above the threshhold of household income eligibility. Go figure. I can, and it's a negative number. Seemed inequitable to me at the time, and I think that's the whole argument around gay marriage. Still - marriage (the institution and historic sense of the word) is not necessarily the answer. The civil liberties and economic benefits usually coming with marriage are the answer. Call it what you like (such as "Fair"), but not "marriage." One argument against Gay Marriage that I don't hear or see is: Court Systems and State Governments hope to avoid it, not for any moral reason, but because they can't handle the number of divorce actions in the superior courts today. It's simply math to them. No more room on the dockets! So, Gay Marriage, No. Civil Union or some other "status" that allows two individuals to enjoy the benefits, privileges, and rights that others enjoy - Yes... especially if dissolving that civil union can be made easier, shorter, and less expensive.

 

Many people disagree with gay marriage on the basis of their religious beliefs. There is also much funding by many religious organizations and lobbyist groups to pressure lawmakers to not allow these rights to be granted. Besides the obvious breach of separation of church and state it reeks of sanctimonious hypocrisy. Freedom of religion which so many people enjoy today was achieved by a long and hard fought battle to achieve the right to freely practice your beliefs without government or any outside intervention. So..... it is perfectly legal to believe that Noah built the ark and saved all living things, that Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt, and that God wiped out tens of thousands of Jews because David took a census, but it is illegal for two people of the same sex to be married. See as crazy as it seems to certain people that Gays should be allowed to marry many people think you are f**king crazy for believing what you believe. I could easily say that religion poses more of a threat to mankind than homosexuality but that would be a misguided judgment. People are not always inherently dangerous because they follow a peculiar lifestyle or particular philosophy. Even though I disagree strongly with religion in general I would never support anyone who chose to take your right to believe freely away from you. If your church refuses to marry gay people that is your right. But to egregiously overstep your bounds and place restrictions on and refuse rights to people when there is no good logical secular reason for doing so delivers a serious blow to civil rights in this country. Because in the end all of us could be faced with oppression of some sort and would hope for sense, reason, and the principles of freedom to conquer hate, fear, and misunderstanding.

 

you said:
"The best solution is to allow civil unions for everyone (not just gay people)."
This is a good middle ground to argue. However, the benefit to your plan was "sticking to tradition" which is not a morally relevant benefit. Your plan might be a good government policy. However, it does not answer the question of whether gay marraige is right or wrong. This means your argument is not relevant to our discussion.

 

you said:
"The best solution is to allow civil unions for everyone (not just gay people)."
This is a good middle ground to argue. However, the benefit to your plan was "sticking to tradition" which is not a morally relevant benefit. Your plan might be a good government policy. However, it does not answer the question of whether gay marraige is right or wrong. This means your argument is not relevant to our discussion.

 

You said:
"the word "marriage"... [is] misused" based on the warrant that "[f]rom a religious standpoint gay marriage isn't... possible".

The problem is that there are other standpoints that define terms differently. Simply arguing that religious people define things a certain way is not sufficient. This would be sufficient if you prove religious perspectives are the only legitimate perspectives for defining terms. That's not true because definitions come from common usage and most common humans do not derive the entirety of their language from religion.

Further, you are quite ethnocentric with your claim. This is not truly a "religious standpoint" but a Abrahamic standpoint. Many other religions accept homosexuality.

 

Your argument is that "males and females are different in the eyes of law" so "gay marraige is wrong because that dichotomy cannot exist"
This is highly problematic.
1) even if they are different, I don't think they ought to be different. impartial legal systems seem morally superior to most. equality seems to be better, on balance, than partiality.
2.) this does not make gay marraige wrong, but rather just suggests that different laws need to be created to be friendly to gays. if we had a world where these laws were inclusive (ie california), then we would not have this problem. as such, your argument does not prove gay marraige wrong, but simply shows that our current government does nto support homosexuality.

 

not all laws are based on moral beliefs. there is nothing moral about traffic regulations.

further, your argument is contingent upon you proving that gay marraige is morally invalid. you simply state your beliefs. this is a debate, you need to do more than state your beliefs, but rather say why your beliefs are better than mine.

 

this is the naturalistic fallacy. what exists now is not necessarily what is right. you need still must prove why having a government chock full of biblical references is the right thing to do. without that, you have no argument.

 

I don't know where you came up with that definition for what makes something ethical. Something isn't always ethical just because it would benefit us if "everyone" did it. It's a set of morals and it's entirely relative and subjective as is anything deemed to be "right" or "wrong". Even the idea that something is better for "us" or not is subjective. If things were that simple then I'm sure social programs in government wouldn't be debated over at all.

And the idea that if "everyone" (an extreme statement since that's not reality) had a gay marriage we would become extinct is equally as absurd. Currently not "everyone" gets married at all and children are born out of wedlock, born to people who never have sex with their partner (surrogates, artificial insemination etc...). So no, gay marriage actually has no effect whatsoever on our species' ability to reproduce because marriage itself doesn't have a 1:1 relationship with reproduction.

Your logic is extremely flawed. I think you skipped those classes in college. I refute what you're saying because you make hypotheses that aren't related to reality and make them the foundation to your point of view. The bottom line is that the idea of right and wrong is always a subjective one and not subject to factual arguments. You can't empirically prove something that's a matter of taste such as chocolate is better than vanilla and so on.

So now on to the actual opinion here. Do you think Gay Marriage is right or wrong? From what you've written I'd say you think it's wrong. That's your right, but why deny anyone of their ability to have a marriage recognized by the state? You're not going to change them from being gay by doing this and since it has no effect on you, why bother? Now that's more of a hypothetical question assuming you're actually against gay marriage as a practice. Maybe for you it's just an opinion.

 

What's interesting is that the person you're replying to never mentioned incest at all. They referred to bestiality and pedophilia. And your belief that people "become" gay after molestation or doing ecstasy is probably one of the most ignorant and laughable things I've ever read in the last few years. People don't become gay anymore than they become straight. However you'd have to know and have a conversation with someone who's homosexual to understand this. I doubt you'll ever bring yourself to do anything like that as it's pretty clear that you've just been taught that this "abnormal" behavior is repulsive.

 

I'll concede there are cases of people who are themselves confused and most likely not truly homosexual to begin with or made to feel so guilty about who they really are (by people like yourself) that they choose to convincingly hide or mask their true nature. Those people do exist and I've met some myself. That's who you're encountering.

However to say that there is some "cure" for homosexuality merely reinforces that you have a limited exposure to the broader cross-section of the people we're talking about here.

And although you'd like to think so, I didn't blindly convince myself of any of this. I've had and continue to have friends and family members who are gay and I've had long discussions with them about it. I can tell you with certainty that at no time did they choose their preference anymore than you chose yours. Many of them are made to feel guilty for how they feel and I even know a few who have been through programs like the one you describe. They do this because they're told they should be ashamed of who they are. But in the end they cannot shake the reality that they are gay and cannot choose to live in direct contradiction of that.

And again your weak analogies are almost funny. Measles are not an equivalent to homosexuality. You can't catch it. If sexual preference was a virus or bacteria (which is what your statement suggests) then you're also saying that heterosexuality is an infection but merely a different strain.

I don't enjoy sin. I simply define it differently. Now I'm sure you believe homosexuals live in some kind of "sin" due to your religious beliefs, but that's your "choice" to believe these things. Don't tell me it's empirically sinful. Sin is a relative idea and I certainly don't share your view of sin in this case.

Obviously we're not going to change each others minds through this discussion, but you'd probably be better served if you stuck to the actual topic rather than throwing little insults my way like asking if my father wasn't around. Seriously? That's what you came up with?

I looked over some of your other replies here and while I never expect to find the most dignified people on the net, for a "counselor" you sure do speak to people with the flair of an angry high-school child. Fighting to get your opinion heard and insulting people along the way.

To try to bring it back to the actual topic at hand... In the end gay marriage will be legalized. There were people just like yourself who fought against interracial marriage not so long ago on the basis that it was immoral and sinful and redefined traditional marriage. Eventually the majority of people came to understand otherwise (as do most people who've weighed in on this topic here). Because thankfully under the law, your version of Christianity isn't the final say on what defines right and wrong.

 

It's official, you've proved that all you're capable of is avoiding any points I make on this subject and regurgitating some of the most stereotypical misguided information on the planet. I'll put aside your inability to write properly formed sentences and focus on the rest of it for now.

I'm not sure where you're pulling these statistics from, but 3% is a gross underestimation of the reality. In California, Prop 8 only passed by a small margin. Those against it made up 47.9% of the voting populous. Similar numbers can be seen in any state where such measures have been on the ballot and there are 2 states that legally recognize gay marriage already. It's hardly 3%.

Now this idea you have about an "agenda" or "manifesto" reads like the beginning of a crass sketch in a comedy show. The only thing I've ever heard from any homosexual friend of mine is that they'd like to be left alone to live their life and treated fairly and equally under the law. Where you came up with this concept of combining that with pedophilia is beyond me, but at this point your ignorance isn't surprising me anymore. My only "personal" manifesto is to see to it that as many people who believe what you do are enlightened and come to understand that judgment and hatred aren't good qualities in anyone, much less a self-proclaimed Christian. Which brings me to your ramblings about AIDS.

Yet again your statistics are completely wrong. The number one way of contracting AIDS heterosexual contact, not homosexual. You'd know this if you spent any time with patients of the disease or those who care for them. Or if you just went to the local library. But in your mind it's probably the "gay" disease so you stay away. Here's a quote from the CDC... "The majority of HIV infections are acquired through unprotected sexual relations between partners, one of whom has HIV. The primary mode of HIV infection worldwide is through sexual contact between members of the opposite sex."

I'm sure you came up with this 60% number from general bigotry and perception rather than simply looking it up or reading about it from those who actually treat the epidemic.

And I love how you have to insinuate that I myself must be gay to be defending gay rights to such a degree. You can make whatever assumptions make you feel comfortable, but I'm not gay. I simply subscribe to a belief where condemnation of other people isn't a form of therapy to make myself feel more entitled to going to heaven. Also, whether or not the Christian faith makes up a large percentage of the country isn't an issue for me. On the whole Christianity contains sound guidance for living life. It's your form of Christianity that bothers me. The one of judgment, ignorance, and hatred. Most of the Christians I know don't agree with the drivel you write. And if popular opinion were always equivalent to what is "right" then we'd still be living in a segregated society that thinks the world is flat. So telling me I'm in the minority (even though that's a by a tiny margin) isn't going to have any effect on me.

Now do you want to respond to my point about marriage under the law and discrimination or are you going to come back and tell me how AIDS was created when a gay pedophile had sex with a dead monkey?

 

"Gay marriage is helping spread the AIDs virus"

False.

 

....ain't buying it.

 

It's those people that don't care if their son grows up to kiss Mike that are really letting America go to hell in a (flowered) handbasket.

 

Good, then you'll also be against sex in any position other than missionary and against any form of oral sex. These are also illegal acts in most states. Simply not enforced. But you already knew that.

 

In your world. But you do know that around 70% of the population of the world either subscribes to a faith other than Christianity or no faith at all, right? Just do a search for "Major Religions of the World Ranked by Number of Adherents" - So your "laws" are your beliefs. Not shared by the entire planet.

 

I'll post this again here for you. Look up "Major Religions of the World
Ranked by Number of Adherents" and you'll see that no where near 76% of the world are proclaimed Christians.

 

Why would I stop mentioning my personal experience with homoesexuals via what I know first hand from friends and family members? Am I not to bring to bear what I know? I seem to recall you saying that you work as a counselor for some kind of homosexual rehabilitation. Is it my responsibility to tell you to stop with that "crap"?

Now I'd love to see this web site of a gay/lesbian organization where they compare or associate themselves with pedophelia and include it as some sort of agenda. You say "see link" but of course I see none. Then you mention "The AIDS Council"? Again no link, but after doing a search I found (aidscouncil dot org) and after searching extensively I don't see anything regarding your statistic. In fact I see plenty to the contrary. They actually defer to the CDC, which I both cited and quoted in my reply.

Your statement "The only way a heterosexual gets aids is from a homosexual affair or the spouse is having a homo affair or blood trasfusion" shows me that you're living in a cave. The highest transmission of AIDS in the world is through hetereosexual contact. Here's another exact source for you where the World Health Organization says..."The World Health Organization estimates that heterosexual transmission has accounted for 75% of the HIV infections in adults world-wide."

Here's the source:
World Health Organization, The HIV/AIDS pandemic: 1993 Overview, Geneva, World Health Organization, 1993, Publication No. WHO/GPA/CNP/EVA/93.1.

Maybe in your secluded sector of the US the numbers vary, but I can asssure you that AIDS itself is not just the gay disease you make it out to be. And then you leap back to some reference to blood banks in 1986? You do realize 22 years has gone by? Here are some more up to date stats for you to ponder... "Nearly all people infected with HIV through blood transfusions received those transfusions before 1985. In August 1995, the FDA recommended that all donated blood and plasma also be screened for HIV-1 p24 antigen. The U.S. blood supply is currently among the safest in the world."

Yes, in some developing countries these things are still an issue because testing of the blood supply isn't on the same level as developed nations.

Your IQ level isn't reflective of the amount of knowledge you've been exposed to. Since IQ doesn't equate to actual information, only the ability to learn it, I don't see what your IQ has to do with this discussion. You still often fail to write properly structured English sentences and you've shown me no evidence whatsoever to support any of this drivel. You're just pulling statements out of the air about gay agendas and pedophelia, but it's all crazy talk. The largest gay/lesbian organization that tries to advance gay rights is GLAAD and I don't see anything on their web site about associations with pedophiles or any agenda that would effect your life in any way.

And where's this evidence that gay people want multiple partners when they're married? You've shown me nothing to support that. I'm not telling you "what a gay friend told me" - I'm telling you what I know to be the mentality of most homosexual people I've come in contact with. In fact, I know more heterosexual people who have open marriages than any homosexuals. I haven't referred to "a friend" I've been telling you (if you use your IQ to read) that I have several friends and family members. I like to avoid self-induced ignorance (unlike yourself) so I actually have conversations with them about these things. In fact I've shared this conversation with a couple of them. Also, if I were gay, I certainly wouldn't hide it. And I definitely wouldn't pretend not to be on an anonymous web site.

So my "evidence" is rather broad. I've told you about extensive personal experience, conversations I've had first hand with those we're talking about, and medical data from the CDC and World Health organization with links and cited sources. So far you've only pretended to know what you're talking about based on nothing I can see at all. And once again, you continually fail to respond directly to anything I've tried to bring up.

Now you go ahead and admit it. You're not only a counselor at your gay rehabilitation center, you're also a client.

 

Ah yes. This thing. I've heard that people bring this up in desperate moves to gain ground when they have nothing to stand on. This is an archaic document that does not reflect the current motivation behind any gay rights movement, nor did it ever really reflect the sentiments of the homosexual community at large. It's like finding a document prepared by the KKK and showing it to Asians to say, "See? Look at what Americans want to do." Of course maybe you're for some of what they write, who knows?

I again refer you to GLAAD since they are the current advocate of what defines gay rights. You continually cling to statistics about AIDS from the 80s and a manifesto written by some of the smaller and more vocal sects of the homosexual community written in 1972. I prefer to look at the "current" state of the world and talk about that. Nowhere in any of the current laws allowing homosexual marriage is polygamy or pedophilia part of the deal.

However, I can point you to a group of Mormons who'd be very happy to see #8 carried out. I myself am not against polygamy. I'm not an advocate for it either, but I'm sure you think it's the work of Satan.

 

America is a free country with free religion and beliefes. love is love. whether its a guy and a guy, a girl and a girl, or a guy and girl. We are aloud to love whomever we choose to love and, therefor, should be able to marry whomever we choose.

 

love is love everywhere and in any gender
they have the same right to get married as a man with a woman, when its about love to be gay or lesbian isnt a issue.

 

You asked me, "where do you get a popped out of your head
20% world wide." And I answered that question. Now you're saying that it's twice as large as Islam, but you obviously aren't looking at the actual statistics I referred to. Instead you're pulling a number out of thin air, which I did not. Worldwide Christianity is around 33%, Islam is around 22% - But none of this has any bearing on the topic at hand. So if you want to get back to any of the points I made to you before, feel free.

 

How did "I" get off point? I followed you down your tangents. You need to look back at the flow of the conversation. Look, now you're talking about whether sex between two male animals is "nasty" or not. How does that relate to gay "marriage"? But I'll follow you once again. You need to watch some Discovery channel. In the animal kingdom homosexual activity does exist. Obviously they're not marrying one another, but even if this wasn't the case, I don't think comparing humans to animals is a great way to make a point. We're entirely different when it comes to social behavior.

I also don't see lions dividing themselves into religious groups, starting wars over who's belief in god is the right one, and killing or shunning lions that are different. But I'm not really interested in modeling human society after those found in the animal kingdom.

And when did I ever say anything about thinking monkeys are my cousins? I'll ignore the reality that evolutionists believe this about apes and not monkeys. Big difference, but not that I'd expect you to know that after the pitiful display of knowledge you've shown here.

 

It's a simple as this. When a guy loves a girl they get married, and no body gives a crap, so gays deserve the same. When to people love each other they have the right to get married.

 

Gay marriage bans, along with other laws, are only in place because of the religious right that seems to be infecting this country. The UNITED States of America can only remain united if laws are created with all men and women in mind. To have a law that favors one religion, or lack thereof, over another is the bane of freedom. Secular law is the only law that works.

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with mankind as he does with womankind, they are both commiting an abomination, they shall be put to death, their blood is on their own hands."

There's a loving god, eh?

 

Gay marriage bans, along with other laws, are only in place because of the religious right that seems to be infecting this country. The UNITED States of America can only remain united if laws are created with all men and women in mind. To have a law that favors one religion, or lack thereof, over another is the bane of freedom. Secular law is the only law that works.

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with mankind as he does with womankind, they are both commiting an abomination, they shall be put to death, their blood is on their own hands."

There's a loving god, eh?

 

Gay marriage bans, along with other laws, are only in place because of the religious right that seems to be infecting this country. The UNITED States of America can only remain united if laws are created with all men and women in mind. To have a law that favors one religion, or lack thereof, over another is the bane of freedom. Secular law is the only law that works.

Leviticus 20:13: "If a man lies with mankind as he does with womankind, they are both commiting an abomination, they shall be put to death, their blood is on their own hands."

There's a loving god, eh?

 

I have to say that I'm a little confused as to why I see words like "god" and "bible" littering nearly every single argument. Deities or fairy-tales have no place in a marriage. A marriage is the union of two human beings (or sometimes a human being and a goat...). The only thing relevant is the feelings of the two parties involved, not yours, not mine, not any government's and certainly not any religion's.

 

which have no stand in american law. we have freedom of religion. if we start making laws because of the bible, then we are no longer a free country. my father is a paster, and very constervitive, but even he agrees that you shouldn't make laws based on a religion.

 

Those studies are certainly troubling. However, it is not sensible to use them to argue against extending marriage rights to LGBT people. There are two main premises underlying your argument. The first of these is that the relative health risks of anal sex constitute a sign that it is deemed unhealthy by a divine being. The reason that the argument presupposes the existence of some sort of diety is that, if this god is nonexistent, then the focus should be on solving human problems, rather than worrying about what God thinks.
Your argument also assumes that this deity shows us its preferences by making this safer, while making that less safe. By this logic, oral sex should be the type that is most beloved of the Deity. This is one of the two main types of intercourse for gay men, and the only primary one for gay women. Of course, the opponents of homosexuality ignore lesbians, because they do not take women seriously, and because they think that there must be a man involved in order for it to really be sex. Another problematic implication is that childbirth, among the most natural and beautiful things in existence, would be deemed dirty, because in a more 'natural' pre-modern setting, a very high percentage of women would pay the ultimate price for giving life. Of course, I am not arguing that childbirth is anything less than a beautiful thing. Taken on balance, childbirth is clearly necessary and good. I am only pointing out that there is no reason that God would make the best of things the most perilous. Here we see the impressively unbalanced way in which gay marriage's opponents apply the 'ain't safe, ain't right' rule. The second problem with these arguments is that they always seem to assume that irresponsible sexual behavior is an inherent part of the LGBT community. For one thing, this ignores the fact that, controlling for the difference in marriage rights, heterosexuals have been every bit as irresponsible as their homosexual counterparts, ever since the first hominines decided that sex feels good. I readily admit that a segment of the LGBT community engages in relatively high levels of risky behavior, and that based on your evidence, committed gay couples may need to be more careful. However, this certainly does not mean that the culture of that certain segment of the gay community cannot be changed, or that committed gay couples cannot be made more aware of these risks. As for why some gay people behave in irresponsible ways, it is for two main reasons. The first is straight out of social psych 101, which tells us that labeling the defining characteristic of a certain group of people as deviant is not a good way for l'Infame to achieve his objective. Not only will it obvously not stop homosexual intercourse, but it has the effect of making some parts of the gay community engage in the same irresponsible practices that the mainstream assumes them to engage in. This is partly as parody, like with in some Pride parades. It is also partly because gay people are forced to buy into the worldview of conservatives, because they are the ones that have traditionally had the power to define. When the dominant class tells a person that he or she is sick, that person tends to believe it. In conclusion, I believe that when scrutinized in a fairminded and intellectually honest way, these two major anti-homosexuality arguments are shown to be hollow.

 

There are so many things wrong with your argument. First of all allowing gay marriage doesn't mean "all" couples will suddenly become same-sex and thus lead to the extinction of mankind. Secondly, animals of all kinds engage in same sex behavior. You should watch the Discovery channel more. Next, no one "decided" to be anything. These people feel the way they feel just as you and I do. They don't wake up in the morning and decide to find themselves attracted to people of the same sex.

Finally, if you're saying marriage is for the purpose of reproduction then do you feel we should add restrictions to prevent heterosexual couples who are sterile from getting married?

If you really put aside prejudice and more importantly strict religious morality then you end up with no argument at all against same-sex marriage.

 

That's one the most ignorant things I think I've ever heard. Incest doesn't even come close to the same level as gay marriage. The fact that you would even compare the two only shows how unbelievably backwards you are in your way of thinking. Now, my question is if you believe that same sex marriage is wrong, then do you think pedophiles and convicted rapist should still have the right to marry?

 

Pray tell how were the morals of almost every species in the animal kingdom corrupted considering there are countless examples of homosexuality in animals?

 

no matter what a person is still going to be gay so marriage should be allowed

 

For me as a gay man - this is a tricky one. I think Gay people deserve exactly the same rights as their straight counterparts. Simply because I think being gay is a biological thing not a nurtured condition. We would no more discriminate against someone who had been born with no limbs getting married after all.

However as a wider issue - I have a problem with "marriage". I personally think the concept needs updating. Whilst our society does need strong bonds between people who love each other - especially when children are concerned I think marriage is slightly archaic in some of its concepts - white dress etc. For this reason I would prefer marriage to be changed to encompass everyone - so there isn't civil partnerships and marriages (usually with religious links) but one "partnership" ceremony - stripped of all religious undercurrents (unless requested by the people themselves).

 

If gay marriage is so wrong, then why is divorce right?
If two people love eachother, no matter what gender they are, don't they have the right to happiness.
Personally i don't believe that just because two people are the same gender, that the right to happiness should be taken away from them.
Some religions i know to be against gay marriage, but if you analyse it enough, you'll find that gay marriage isn't destroying marriage, divorce is.
Before you start questioning if gay people should be allowed to marry, think about their future, their happiness, their rights and choices. People shouldn't be judged and treated differently because of their sexaulity. Doesn't every human on the planet have the right to be happy? Think about it, i myself certainly believe strongly that gay marriage is no bad thing.

 

It's their prerogative. Its no different than a straight cuple getting married, they love each other then they should be able to show it by devoting themselves to each other throught marriage.

 

It's there life if they wish to be gay good for them. Who are we to judge? There is only one who can judge him isGod. Gays shouldnt be looked at differently because they are attracted to the same sex.

 

I say that gay marriage is right for the choice of a person but in a religious aspect it is wrong but if god gave us the right to choose and we choose to be gay, then isn't that our choice? Also, it is our lives and to say that we cannot 'love' a person because we are the same gender is a again wrong. and so is the stereotypical behavior people show towards gay people its their life and who are we to judge what the want to do with it.

 

This is a ridiculous debate--this should have ended long ago--in favor of gay marriage. There's no point in even adding a thought-out argument

 

Why did you vote it's wrong if you don't care. That would mean by default, you think it's right, as it does not affect you, therefore there is no reason why you would think it's wrong.

 

It doesn't matter i mean for gay people that's what they want if it's what they want then why not it's interferring with anything just make them happy, you can't force them to marry the opposite sex if they weren't comfortable about it right? they have the right to have gay marrdiges

 

Everybody has the right to love whoever they choose.
I'm straight , so sometimes I find same-sex relationships awkward; but who am I to tell someone they can't be happy?
Some science suggests that it's something inbuilt within someone - how do you just disobey something that's part of your genome?

For those people that say that God and the bible do not believe in homosexual relationships, I think you should consider the morals of Christianity, rather than look at the fine print. God encourages us to love each other, to forgive each other, and to accept each other - to love, forgive and accept everybody..not just heterosexuals.

 

People can't help who they love . . . and if you can't accept gay people . . . then your homophobic . . . it's offencive . . . and i'm bi-sexual and i know how if feels too be picked on because of sexuality . . . it's like saying that you can't get married if your fat or skinny . . . like a fat person can't get married too a skinny person . . . so don't judge just because someone loves someone . . . if you don't like it then keep it too your self

 

Gay marriage is the best solution because new laws do not need to be written for all the benefits, tax forms, medical forms etc. if people of the same sex become married. Civil Unions pose problems for many reasons, such as for individuals who live in one state, but work in another. If the federal government mandated civil Unions to skirt the marriage issue a whole new set of laws would need to be written to accomodate it.
Religious institutions are not bound by federal law to alter their practices as private places/property, so churches/synagogues/whomever could still deny marriages as many do today based on secular affiliation.

 

The problem with this argument is that you assume that laws will slowly develop or possibly blur between civil union/marriage. If this remain a civil union matter then it is a 10th amendment issues and states make the decisions. This would mean that a patch work of laws will exist that do not necessarily work together and may be in an island of "no" states. What happens if someone lives in NY but commutes to PA for work? Does PA have to accept a joint tax form claim from the NY couple?
In order to do this successfully the federal government would have to argue that this is a 14th amendment case, and so allow the federal government to require this law be mandated.
This process was already established with interracial marriage via Loving v. Virginia in the 60's, so instead of creating a whole new bureaucratic formula which will need to be mandated anyways why not simply use the 14th to require the existing laws of marriage and protection under citizenship actually be enforced?

 

The only argument that anti-gay marriage supporters have is the bible, sorry to break it to you but the bible says a lot of other things you shouldn't do, so unless you live by all the rules that are in the bible, which nobody does unless maybe you're a priest which is also misleading since there have been quite a few that molest children, then you can't use the bible which leaves you with nothing but your homophobia

 

Gay Marriage should be legal. We pay taxes like everyone else. The only reason this is such a big issue is because there are religious people out there. In the Christian religion, The old testiment had the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah. The new testiment was written and only a few of the old tales and such were put into the book because they were more strict with the old testiment. If you read the United States Constitution, Theres a little thing called a separation of Church and State. Which means, No religion involved. Which is had because all of these people in the government and such base their knowledge around their beliefs (which includes religion) it is how they were raised. Not all politicians are like this. The GLBT community should have the same rights as anyone else. Nothing more and nothing less. We are all human beings. Why can't we act like it? Instead of narrowminded people who have bigotted opinions. You can say I don't know what I am talking about, But I know that when it comes to the time when I find someone who I wish to spend the rest of my life with, I should be able to marry them, Just like any Heterosexual couple can.

 

Your mistaken assumption is that laws derive from morals. They don't, necessarily. Basic, axiomatic laws often do derive from the values of the people being governed but in modern society this is not so much the case any longer. Now it has evolved into values along with politics. Laws can be considered negotiations for middle ground between different political groups with different values or motivations.

Applying this to marriage, we see that it is a negotiation between religious groups, conservatives, liberals, and homosexuals and bisexuals. The negotiation tried to find middle ground with civil unions, but such a system mirrors segregation between whites and coloureds last century, in that the "separate but equal" union categories (marriage and civil) are separate but not equal, just like racial segregation. Homosexuals and bisexuals want equal rights under law, equal protections, and so on. The religious groups essentially centre their argument around "but it's a sin!!!" and variants thereof, conservatives centre their argument around "but it's gross and different!!!" (they both mask their arguments using opaque studies, research that cherry picks data, and appeals to emotion).

 

i dont really think that marriage has to be limited between a man and a woman just because the definition of marraige states man and woman you guys are taking the definition too literally and thats not how its supposed to be. so what if the two people of the same sex love each other? will that bring on the end of the world if we let them get married? i doubt GOD will strike us all down if two guys get married.

 

Would you care to find me some evidence of it "goes against human nature?" Homosexuality has been a variation of the human existence since the start of mankind. We are evolutionary beings, therefore homosexuality does not go against human nature, but is a part of it.

FYI- "because thats what happened when people don't have faith or belief in any religion." I know plenty of homosexuals who are religious. Are you saying that homosexuality occurs because they don't have faith in a religion. Scientists will be excited to hear about that theory.

 

Being a polygamist has absolutely NOTHING to do, with being homosexual. You are making irrational jumps of opinions that are based not on what you would call common sense, but merely prejudice. What is the "idea" of marriage? let's be honest, even though many people might not have wanted it to, the idea of marriage evolves with every generation. When King Henry couldn't have any male heirs, he created divorce (a very large slam against the "idea" of marriage in my opinion.) It used to be that males had guardianship over their wives, until women moved for equal rights. There's also the point that in marriage you are going to be in a lifetime commitment to one person. How did that work out? 50% percent of first marriages, 67% of second and 74% of third marriages end in divorce, according to Jennifer Baker of the Forest Institute of Professional Psychology in Springfield, Missouri. Stop using the "sanctity of marriage" as an excuse not to give equal rights. It's getting boring.

Marriage has already become a symbol head for what most people see it as today. Love. When you love someone, you get married. That has become the two things linked together. So, take another look at your common sense meter. It's compass must be a little off.

oh. and come on. The incredibles? That was a rocking movie. Don't even try to use it in an argument against gay marriage. That'll just ruin my day.

 

so are teenagers, prostitution, and poor sex-ed in Africa, but of course who cares about them?

 

why is it morally wrong? the bible says so.
why is the bible right? god inspired the bible.
what is the proof that god exists? the bible says so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

 

How can marriage be religious if atheists can get married?

 

Gay marriage should be alowwed.
LOVE IS LOVE PEOPLE!

 

Religion, lifestyle etc is a personal choice. If your religion or culture disallows gay marriage, that's fine. It means you don't want to marry a person of the same gender. But then why should it extend to other religions or cultures? Gay people marrying in no way affects your marriage to the opposite gender either, they simply get married and get on with it just like you do.

 

Marriage is the joining of two people who love each other. Are gay people not allowed to love? What if it was the other way around, and the majority of the population was gay, and straight people weren't allowed to marry? Think about that.

 

Marriage is the joining of two people who love each other. Are gay people not allowed to love? What if it was the other way around, and the majority of the population was gay, and straight people weren't allowed to marry? Think about that.

 

can i just go for if it makes you happy

 

there is no choice between being straight or homosexual, because you are born straight or aren't. If people are gay then they were born that way and that is the way they are, there's nothing wrong with that! It's like how there is nothing wrong with someone being black or white, or any race. We are all different, but yet we are all equal.

 

How is it going against human nature if it is the way some people are born? There is no choice to being gay or straight, and even animals can be gay or straight.

 

hahahahahahaha, okay. let me get this straight; you view people as "morally wrong" for wanting to marry somebody of the same gender. yet "gay marraige is helping to spread the AIDS virus." uhm, if these people are such immoral beings, what makes you think they're going to wait until they're married to have sex? how about you stop trying to control what other people do with their lives and just accept the fact that some people are DIFFERENT than you, they believe different things, and your controlling nature shouldn't be a factor in whether they're happy or not.

 

who cares? Man was endowed with the right to love and if that love comes with loving someone of the same sex than so be it. I see women married to men who are miserable but you see men with men who could neverr be happier. It is anyones place to judge.

 

what is the different between a human and animal ??? we think we have mind to discriminate and distinguish the right and the wrong ?? have u ever heard that two dogs which are same gender married each other ?? about me i havenot and sooner and later i wont anticipate news like this ?? anywhy , those who feel that gay have the right ?? also we have the right to see in our community normal and natural relationship between people . our chlidren should be save from wrong things . they learn thier moral from people and when they hear or see the consequences of gay in the community they may go to the wrong way
in brief if want to be gay this ur chose but please keep away from conservative societies .

 

I myself am not gay but if a gay couple feel they are committed to marrying, then they should be allowed.

Now, the dictionary doesn't state any requirement of love or romance in a relationship but it mentions a long-term commitment.

Therefore, if a gay couple is prepared to be wed into a long-term relationship, then that is completely plausible.

We live in a multicultural society that isn't controlled by the church anymore. Clergymen shouldn't be the people to judge whether or not a wholesome gay couple should marry; that's the government's job, and politicians should base their decisions on moral grounds, rather than religious taboos.

 

Love is love, regardless of whatever.
People should just accept that fact.

 

It's America. We have that freedom, and keep you dogma out of it. Love is love no matter what it is.

 

The argument about gay marriage comes down to morality. What we as a society should morally permit. If you're morals are based in religion and creationism i.e. "Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve"; you will need to prove the existance of your god before you make try to make rules prohibitting what the majority of society has no issue with.

Gay marriage is a right.

 

its a sore point with most...and I think if we lived back before divorce was so rife in society i could easily see gay marriage not happening.

but hey...we live in a free society...free speech, a right to live and everyone is equal right? So what? no gay marriage?

i guess thats just as bad as no blacks sitting on the bus.

you cant have your cake and then eat it...you want to live in a world of equality then treat others equally...

i live by the idea of treat others as you would yourself...and if i were in love and wanted to somehow make that love concrete though some small ceremony then i would want others to be ok with it.

its ok sitting on the straight side of the fense but imagine if you were genuinely in love as a homosexual person and were denied the right to prove your love.

it would be kinda naff right?

 

your statement about two gay parents making a child gay is as stupid as me saying two straight parents make a child straight.

the fact we are all here arguing for this topic proves the latter statement to be false.... ergo...

 

When was it ever decided that religion should become a part of how laws are made? I myself am straight, but I believe that two people no matter what sex should be allowed to be married. Marriage isn't about religion it is something provided by a country/state to provide the unification of two people that love each other and would like to spend their lives together. If religion is so against it then don't allow gay marriages in the church, temple, or wherever you go to worship, but by all means gay marriage should be allowed in a way that has nothing to do with religion. Marriage is often performed just by someone of the state that has the privilege to marry two people together and that marriage has nothing to do with religion. Our country was made on the basis of freedom to be who you want to be and worship what you want to worship. This is the reason our country was made; so that religion would not enter the way we form our laws. Also to all religious people if you believe that God chooses our life and creates who we are. Then isn't he the one that made a person gay, isn't he the person that created that sexual orientation, and made it so that a person is allowed to like who they like? If a person decides to or is born to love and be attracted to someone of the same sex, why should they not be allowed to? It is wrong for someone to tell YOU as your own individual to tell you how to live your life;just as it is wrong for you to tell someone else how they should or shouldn't live their life. If they are attracted to the same sex did anyone give them a choice when they were born who they wanted to be attracted to? No, they were born that way and have no way to refuse the urge of liking someone of the same sex. Why are you attracted to the opposite sex? Because you were born that way. You may have your own opinion about something but that opinion shouldn't dictate how someone can or can't live their life. Homosexual people deserve the same rights heterosexual people have when they decide they want to spend the rest of their life with someone. You telling someone who they can and cannot marry is discrimination. This is the same as me telling you that you can't marry my white family member because you aren't white. DISCRIMINATION is NOT RIGHT and our country needs to finally get over this and accept that everybody no matter who deserves equal rights to everyone else.

 

The only reason gay marriage isn't allowed is thanks to ignorant people who can't just can't accept that people of the same sex can't be in love,and who use the church to support their ideas by saying that god doesn't accept it.But isn't god love and forgiving.

 

What is stupid about a couple wanting to marry under gods eye and protection.

 

Doesn't the 1st amedment of the bill of rights clearly say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

 

i dont think gay marriage is wrong there are no such preinstalled laws that one gender shud fix 2 d other gender ........ but there is problem involved here involved in becoming parents .... i cant encourage completely in this point ...

 

this shouldn't even be a debate, i think that it is sad that people still try to hold others back because they think their ways are right and yours are wrong. our laws were originally intendend to seperate church and state for this very reason. discriminating against gay people makes you no better than the people who enacted the jim crow laws of the "good ol' boys era" people are people reguardless of their personal beliefs. and i think i can safely say that most same sex couples looking to be married just want to be seen equal in the eyes of the law, and not so much in the eyes of your god. furthermore, i can't even believe that people still use religion to debate gay marriage when so many of the "holyest of people" are the ones getting caught raping little boys...... talk about hipocrisy.

 

That is the problem. The world is not painted in black and white. There isn't just 'wrong' and there isn't just 'right'. As in Shakespeare's Hamlet, in Scene II, Act II - "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." You won't see anything with a sign written with either 'good' or 'bad' on it. The very same people that try to be heroes might be the villains in other people's eyes.

 

for the record - I am not gay. I'm married and have a little daughter.

 

I voted wrong because there wasn't a "who gives a crap" chose. It effects me in no way. And for those people afraid of explaining why Joe kisses Mike, that's your problem and not Joe's nor Mike's.

 

First, religion is a red herring. Yes, it is the motive behind a lot of the opposition, but doesn't really add anything to the analysis of the arguments.

The best solution is to allow civil unions for everyone (not just gay people). Maintain marriage as the subset of civil unions which consist of a man and a woman. Then slowly export law that is relevant to both marriage specifically and civil unions in general from the body of marriage law into the body of civil union law. If marriage law is eventually completely subsumed by civil union law, fine. If some elements of marriage law survive as distinct because the state has a legitimate interest in recognizing man/woman relationships, fine.

The worst thing to do is to instantly undermine the assumptions of law that has developed over hundreds of years and which has only ever contemplated man/woman relationships and their effects on society (especially with respect to child birth and its consequences).

 

From a religious standpoint gay marriage isn't even possible. Let along right. But everyone isn't religious or adheres to specific religious guidance.

Marriage is defined as between a woman and a man. So the word "marriage" may be misused in this case. Civil unions, well that's a different matter.

 

I'll be for it when gays/lesbians, when entering the marriage are obligated to choose which of them is viewed as the male and which is the female in the eyes of the law. In the real world men and women are treated differently in the eyes of the law when it comes to divorce, dividing assets, alimony, child support, etc. As it is the gay community wants all the benefits without having to risk the drawbacks of marriage. Agree to one choosing the male role and one the female role in the event of a divorce, and you have my FOR vote. As-is, AGAINST.

 

All laws are derived from your moral beliefs.

Stealing for example, is against the law because most people believe that there is a right and wrong and that stealing is wrong.

I cannot agree with Gay marriage because I believe in right and wrong, and that homosexuality is wrong.

Gay marriage will become legal when either more people in an area believe it is morally right, or when proponents deceive enough of the population that laws are not about right and wrong.

 

Sarcasm is never a good argument in the place of justifiable facts

A terrible fact-
Gay marriage is helping spread the AIDs virus

 

Ok... I dont have any thing against gay people... Im st8 my self but I think that if they want to live togeather , makeout , even try to make little babys ( they cant even when they try ) Its there right.. However I do think its wrong for them to be allowed to get married.. The bible states it as one man and one woman... if he wants men to be togeather it would have been adam an evan instead of adam an eve..... And personly I just dont aggree with it. I would fight to i droped dead if my state allowed it.. ( va dosnt and isnt considering it thank gosh) But I and many others wont go for it. Its not that but they shoundt be able to do it... 50 years ago you didnt even hardley know there was even gay people at all.. now there ever where.

 

okay - that's just not helpful...they need to add a way to demote an argument as "blatent expression of opinion" - mind you that I am FOR gay marriage.

 

That's true
I did not have any evidence to back up my argument

 

"Or do you mean that gay _sex_ is helping spread AIDS? In which
case gay marriage may help reduce the problem. "

What is 'gay sex'?

I think (and this is a wild guess) that the original argument the person was attempting to make was that UNPROTECTED ANAL sex can increase the liklihood of AIDS transmission. That might be true. But if it is, it really has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the two people involved.

 

Actually there the American legal system is filled with Biblical principles and truthes and ...
The Supreme Court Building even has a Bible verse written on it

 

In God We Trust...found on our currency

 

kimmy, your comment should be placed on this side....lol

 

Why are you arguing about a U.S. decision when you are in Canada?

 

I vote "Wrong". It goes against human nature and, as other fellow voters have mentioned, the definition of "Marriage".

And you can't exclude religion from this argument, because thats what happened when people don't have faith or belief in any religion. Religion is there to act as guidelines to what is right and what is wrong. Religion is a way of life. Without it, we're lost.

 

here are some doctor's articles on Aids and homosexuality

http://www.thebody.com/kaiser/2004/mar23_04/black_msm_aids.html
http://www.biblebelievers.com/Cameron1.html
http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/overview.cfm?issue_type=gay_rights
http://www.cwfa.org/articles/5149/CFI/papers/index.htm
http://www.traditionalvalues.org/modules.php?sid=1136

"Homosexuality carries enormous physical and mental health risks, even where governments promote homosexual unions. The journal AIDS reported that in the Netherlands, where "gay marriage" has been legal since 2001, HIV and other diseases are soaring among homosexual men. The study notes that "partnered" homosexuals have "outside" lovers, and are contracting the AIDS virus at alarming rates."

"Xiridou discovered that the “steady” relationships were more likely to spread AIDS than were casual relationships. Why? According to Dr. Xiridou, “… risky behavior with steady partners is much greater than that with casual partners.” She notes that 86% of new HIV infections in Amsterdam occur among “steady” homosexual partnerships."

I think that is some pretty darn good evidence

 

It was hard for me to decide which column to put my view into. I don't really agree with either side.

I happen to believe the government shouldn’t be in the business of sanctioning marriage at all. It’s a private religious matter between a man, a woman and God. As a Christian that’s what I believe. As a Libertarian, I say you’re free to believe differently if you want. If your god will sanction a different kind of marriage, then that’s between you and your god.

If you don’t believe in a god, then you should have the option of creating a legal document that says you’re committed to one another for life. (But you can’t call it marriage, because that’s a religious term. “Separation of church and state.”)

One last note:

[I]s it possible for a Christian couple to avoid the state’s machinery of control and still marry before God? Yes, according to pastor Matt Trewhella. “What’s recorded in a family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America. Early Americans were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their family Bibles. So should we.”

 

Gay people are making a terrible mistake. I think they are living the life right now with not having to commit to anything. If it was like that for normal marriage life would be a whole lot better.

 

The evidence that they produce is pure and undeniable

Just because you disagree with the source does not mean that the information they produce is innacurate or wrong

but good try

 

Marriage - no

Bumming licences - yes

Think about it, you know it makes sense

 

Forget the Bible. Forget the politicians. Let's just talk common sense.

It's been asked why people should be denied the right to be married simply because they are of the same gender. If they love each other and want to make a marriage commitment to each other then why is it anyone else's business? That is a fair argument. My main objection comes not from the argument itself, but from the inevitable consequence of "redefining" marriage. Once you redefine something you change it permanently, and once you declare it "changeable" you can't stop it from being changed repeatedly.

Two men want to get married... and they love each other deeply and want to make their bond a legal, committed marriage. But should we allow people to marry simply because they profess love? If that was the criteria, then who's to say a group of THREE people who profess love and commitment cannot enter into a triune marriage? Polygamists can use the EXACT same arguments that people use for gay marriage. If we cannot credibly limit marriage by gender then how could we credibly limit it by number?

And I don't even want to think about the slippery slope marriage will take after polygamists can marry in groups... because the bestiality folks and the pedophile folks will want their "rights" recognized, too. The only reason we're only hearing about gay marriage is because that's where the current challenge to the definition of marriage is right now. With enough legal wrangling that definition will fail and a newer, broader definition will take its place. After that polygamists will begin their own legal battle, eventually forcing a newer, broader definition. The courts will concede people's right their own lifestyle choice, whatever that may be, and they won't be able to credibly deny marriage to those in that lifestyle.

Do you remember the movie The Incredibles? A good takeaway from that movie was the danger of calling everyone "special", because saying "everyone is special" was the same as saying "nobody is special". Superheroes have super powers that make them special, hence the title "superhero". Imagine if it was decided that mediocre powers could be considered "super" powers if the bearer of those powers wanted. Imagine then if it was decided that the most mundane and ordinary abilities could now be called "super powers", and anyone at all who WANTED to be called a superhero could. At this point the idea of being a superhero is DESTROYED because the definition has become so broad that it's lost all meaning.

In the same way gay marriage moves the IDEA of marriage toward destruction. Once the definition is no longer absolute then any group of people - in any numbers - in any gender combinations - must be allowed the right to be married to all of themselves. That's why I would oppose changing anything about the definition of marriage, because broadening marriage is a slippery slope that would lead toward the destruction of the idea of marriage itself. Not because the Bible says so... and not because some politician says so... but because my common sense tell me so.

 

The real issue is - why is the government involved in this issue at all? We take a personal, religious institution and regulate it, then the government comes back and wants to redefine it.

It should not be a political issue, because my personal, religious things should be separate from government regulation.

Marriage and the government should not mix. That solves the "problem".

 

Simple enough in my mind that the Bible is wear Marriage originates from and the Bible states that Marriage is the bonding of a women and a man.

 

How dare this be called a 'civil right'. The black people of America went through hell to have civil rights, like seats on a bus, the right to education. etc. You gay clowns just want us to recognize you for the fact that you're a bunch of perverts that want a legal excuse for zapping each other in the tail. All I ever hear you people talk about is how gay you are, and what you did in a gay club the night before, and how much you like firemen. You have no souls. I never hear one intelligent word from your speech except when it comes to interior decorating. You're as deviant as Sado-Masochists, and people who have sex with animals.

 

Also this can't be natural, its a deviation because you are not able to sexually reproduce. You're not a race, so why should you be recognized as one? You want us to tolerate you, but you have zero tolerance when people don't accept you. How can I tolerate you when you have these gay parades, and your dancing in the streets in tight leather exposing your butt, with a dildo strapped to your head?

 

Topic is unclear.
If Gay Marriage does not allow adoption of children. Then I have no problem with it. They are entitled to every privileges as the rest of us.
However, it's a totally different story if it involves children. It's no longer between two persons.
Gay is not inborn, it's a path that you choose and one that you're happy with, and everyone should respect that.
Similiarly, gay couples should respect that there are certain values that should not be breach within our society.
Parents have too much influence on the values of the children. And they are the future of the society. And hence the prohibition.
Pls don't use exceptional cases to argue against this point, i.e. some heterosexual couples abusing children, or poor parents who can't afford to raise children. These cases could have been taken care of by heterosexual couples who wanted to adopt.

 

GOD created men and women, for what? So they can just look at each other? They are meant to reproduce and reproduce. God didn't create men to go with men, wtf is that? Do NOT go as far as to getting into our religion to marry, GOD would not like that nor do I. That is ridiculous

 

Then why don't you show some facts that show that gays are not spreading Aids?
If you can do it, then prove it

 

Marriage is a religious construct that has received vicious relabellings by the popular media in recent years as some sort of catch-all "two people, perhaps of the same sex, who want to be together for the remainder of their lives (or perhaps just for a little while)".

Given the ramifications of the classic definition of marriage within traditional religions such as Christianity or Islam, the word, and the construct, barely even applies to most heterosexual "marriages" these days let alone gay ones.

In the UK we have a legal framework called the Civil Partnership which accomplishes much of what most gay people want when they say they want to "get married".

For the sake of polluting the name of a concept that has incredibly important meanings for the devout, I think "gay marriage" in this sense is wrong.

If the gay community wishes to take the word "marriage" as their own, well, I think that is wrong. Gay people cannot be married in the sense that most religions define it.

 

because divorce is allowed, if the "unbeliever departs" or if the spouse is unfaithful. God even divorced Israel. God allows divorce in certain circumstances, but he never has allowed homosexuality

 

If being homosexual was natural then

1. There would only be possibly 6 people on the earth...meaning none of the people making up these sarcastic remakes would be around....heck I wouldn't be around

2. If homosexuality was natural then the butthole would be in the front part of the body.

Its never been accepted as "natural" by society only till now. So i'm pretty sure thousands of years of recorded human history have a little more weight than some piss ant liberal venting on how its unfair.

 

I did not propose "separate but equal." I proposed "distinct and different." Man/woman relationships, especially in the aggregate, have a very different set of implications than man/man and woman/woman relationships. If the law is to contemplate man/woman relationships intelligently, it has to be able to isolate them.

A law requiring separate schools and public accomodations for homosexual people would violate "separate but equal." Law defining marriage as a man/woman relationship does not.

 

You misread my argument.

My argument was not: "Law has historically excluded gay marriage, thus that exclusion must be correct."

My argument was: Marriage law has developed under the assumption that marriage refers to man/woman relationships. For instance, it assumes that one of them can and, with a certain probability will, impregnate the other an average of X times in the aggregate. That assumption has huge implications, and has affected the development of marriage law in countless of direct and indirect ways. Assuming we are to legally recognize homosexual relationships, it doesn't make sense to force that body of law which hasn't previously contemplated the possibility of homosexual relationships to those relationships.

 

"This idea is essentially playing with semantics."

I did not propose that there be a separate but identical marriage for homosexual relationships and that it be called "civil unions."

"Furthermore, the effects on society are bound to be minimal..."

This is the type of reasoning that the slippery slope argument applies perfectly to. Why not let any small group demand a change with little relative impact?

"...why challenge any assumption?"

I'm not arguing that law shouldn't change. I'm arguing that law developed under one set of assumptions should be blindly applied to a different scenario. Read my rebuttal to res0ndf7 for more on this line.

 

First question is this, where do laws come from?
1. A choice in trying to decide what is best for society as a whole, hence murder, stealing, etc are all considered wrong.
2. Religious beliefs that were inherited in our country's history starting with the Founding Fathers.

So which one does marriage belong to? Obviously society as a whole really doesn't benefit one way or another if marriage exists at all whether it is man/woman, man/man, woman/woman, etc.

Second question, so where did marriage come from?
Religion!! And based on Christianity (the originator of marriage), *** marriage is wrong.

But for those who point out all the divorces, Britney's 55-hour marriage, etc, religious people do not enjoy these numbers at all which is why they strongly recommend pre-marital counseling (and offer it for free mind you), and marriage counseling for when problems occur.

To add *** marriage though completely negates the origin of marriage and if you do that then why even keep marriage?

 

You supplied an argument yourself.

You said: "...marriage laws which strengthen and support those relationships and therefore strengthen and support the stability of the child's home..." If you think that having a child is statistically related to the ability to procreate, then you should think that there is a state interest in the ability of procreation.

But what about the "sterile heterosexual"?

"...marriage laws which already apply to sterile people, old people, and others who cannot procreate without outside help..."

What that argument assumes is that if the state is truly interested in procreation, it should engage in invasive and costly determinations about the fertility (and procreative intentions/proclivities, presumably?) of each prospective couple.

"Extending marriage laws...to homosexuals only makes public policy sense."

Did you read my argument? I suggested extending those portions of the laws which make sense for homosexual couples to homosexual couples.

 

your statement---"Then why don't you show some facts that show that gays are not
spreading Aids?
If you can do it, then prove it "

I don't see ANYONE on here saying that AIDS isn't a serious problem in the gay community.--- The issue isn't homosexuality per se but the legal and moral issues of gay marriage.

In other words, we know there is an AIDS problem in the gay community--- will allowing gay marriage make this problem better or worse? --- that is the question.

You have provided (at best) flimsy logic to back your argument--- and essentially ignored everyone who challenges your position

 

Donkey

 

We legally can not allow gay marriage because of the seperation of church and state laws. Which makes it where the government can not change any church regulations. This is why civil unions were created in the first place. Since Marriage was created by God in the bible, which says it is to be between one man and one woman. Basically its Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve. So marriage is a church regulation and considering that the majority of churches in America are against gay marriage, it can legally not be allowed

 

"Fertility and procreation have nothing to do with current marriage law."

does not follow from

"there is no aspect of marital law that requires or inquires about fertility"

One point of defining marriage as a heterosexual union is that it allows statistical inferences about procreation without inquiring about fertility.

To your request: I hope the following clarifies my position. It could apply to certain tax breaks, alimony, divorce court costs, insurance programs--separately or in combination. If you want to reduce the debate to just one, I'll have to admit that our conversation wouldn't be very productive since I doubt either of us knows about the laws on such matters in detail.

The state does not want to restrict how many children a family may have, because that is invasive and costly.

For each child a family has, the state can save $X by affording certain rights and responsibilities to the parents as a married couple.

For each marriage, the state spends $Y granting privileges and enforcing responsibilities.

The state sustains a net loss for each couple to which it grants rights and enforces responsibilities where the couple bore no children.

Heterosexual couples have, on average, P children per couple. Homosexual couples have, on average, Q children per couple.

P Q, enough that the state has a net gain for heterosexual marriages, but a net loss for homosexual marriages.

However, the state might enjoy a net gain recognizing civil unions for couples that were less costly in terms of rights and responsibilities, but with benefits more targeted to relationships less likely to procreate.

 

Here is a reason why gay marriage could be wrong. If gay marriage is ok, then sister and brother marriage is ok too? Whats the difference? Oh wait, the sex is the difference, so SISTER and SISTER or BROTHER and BROTHER is ok... right?

 

Is incestual marriage right or wrong? Does gay marriage include incestual homosexual marriage?

Which country legalized homosexual unions which lead to a lower marriage rate?

 

ON POSITIVE STATEMENTS

We each have made a positive statement. By placing an argument in the left column, you made the statement "Gay marriages are Right." By placing an argument in the right column, I made the statement "Gay marriages are Wrong."

"As the one who makes the claim, it should be your responsibility to demonstrate it."

In any rational discourse, each argument must end with an appeal to common sense or belief. Neither of us can formally prove our primary position, so there can't be a responsibility to demonstrate each claim. My proposition that marriage law is deeply influenced by procreation is an appeal to common sense.

"Arguing generalities is easy because it doesn't require any evidence"

But arguing generalities is robust against losing the forest for the trees.

ON STATISTICS

"What is your basis for concluding that ancient governments ... used reproduction statistics for this purpose?"

If this is what you thought I meant, no wonder you demanded substantive evidence. I don't make any claim that each development in marriage law has been accompanied by a study of reproduction statistics by the law makers.

My proposition is that governments have developed marriage laws in response to realities which are reflected in statistics, including and especially those of procreation. I believe that this is common sense.

ON SOCIOLOGICAL FACTS

"Even if I postulate that your claim is correct, you haven't
addressed the sociological fact that homosexual couples are now becoming parents at faster and faster rates."

I think the easy answer is "wait and see." If the implicit extrapolation you're making is correct, then the law can be adjusted accordingly. But if you want to talk it through, I'm fine with that.

First, this growth might soon be inhibited by limiting factors. One example is higher costs of entry into parenthood (especially for male couples (incidentally, male/male and female/female couples should be treated differently)).

ON THRESHOLDS

"if across all marriages heterosexuals reproduce at rate R, do homosexuals need to match R exactly to get equal rights?"

They need to cross the threshold such that the state does better than break even.

"In my experience the overall rate of committed non-divorced homosexual parents is much higher than heterosexual parents ... this would appear to be to society's overall benefit."

Only if your speculated stability advantage outpaces the loss on unproductive couples.

"How are the interests of the *children* of a homosexual couple advanced or protected by denying their parents access to marriage laws?"

They aren't. How can any child's interests be advanced by not giving him $100? This is just the same cost/benefit question.

BENEFITS OTHER THAN PROCREATION

"It presumes . . . that there is no benefit to society to marrying people besides procreation"

Don't forget the the background principle we're operating against is civil unions, not a void of no legal relationship.

OFF TOPIC: YOUR RHETORIC

"Some less charitable people would call your argument an attempt to use psuedo-scientific analysis to justify a pre-existing prejudice."

People less charitable than you? But by giving it voice in the debate, you seem to be one of those less charitable people. People less charitable than me would call that a cheap shot.

Also, pseudo-science is one thing I have steered clear from, for which you have complained. I have taken answers to empirical questions as common sense priors rather than filling them with pseudo-scientific constructs. On the other hand, your statements about stability of homosexual relationships and your implicit assumptions about the continued rate of growth of homosexual parenthood are closer to pseudo-science (being anecdotal and unjustifiable, respectively).

"Is this a one-off attempt to exclude gays from marrying (like it sounds)"

I think the attitude you adopt here is largely behind support of gay marriage. Since it has been framed as an issue of prejudice, and since progressive ideals against prejudice are among the most universally appealing, people are more likely to accept the position for gay marriage without questioning it as much.

That's the reason I picked up on this debate in the first place. I'm tired of hearing the worst arguments for gay marriage given prominence (and the best buried), while the best arguments against it are ignored (while the worst are paraded about).

 

it's all about the MONEY.
gay marriage is a benefits grab.
straights can have spouse and children covered
by employer's "family" insurance. now gays can.
later...who knows? who will stand in the
way of a discrimination suit denying family
coverage of two dogs and a cat?
just use your imagination how twisted this
"family" definition will evolve in two years.
the Law of Unintended Consequences wins again.

 

Lets look at the facts.from the dictionary

"the social institution under which a MAN and WOMAN establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."

now i dont care if your gay or not just if you gay their is no marriage, not possible, it is wrong and is against the religous beliefs America was founded upon. Heres what the Bible has to say
http://www.tftw2.org/Articles/homosexuality.htm
i cannot believe what has happened to the world today.

 

"Facts are the cure for and the antithesis of common sense..."

What is your factual basis for that assertion? Because I disagree. Facts are not the antithesis of common sense. In fact, I would say that any use of facts is ultimately couched in common sense. But if you have facts that prove otherwise, go ahead.

"Despite my repeated requests you have yet to point out a single tree. We’re hardly in danger of losing sight of the forest."

That's because despite the repetition of your requests, they have little to do with my argument. If I pointed a distant forest out to you, and said "I bet some of those trees are the tallest trees in the forest" would you expect me to run down there are return with detailed information about one or two of the trees? Not only would it be impractical, it wouldn't prove anything. I'm arguing about aggregate costs and benefits. Talking about them individually would get me nowhere.

If you still don't understand why talking about specific aspects of marriage law is irrelevant to the illustration of my argument, fine. There's no point in discussing it further. You can hang your hat on the idea that procreation has nothing to do with marriage law, and I will hang my hat on the idea that it has something to do with it.

"So I guess I was the only one of us who was trying to take your formulas seriously."

A fundamental concept of modern economics is explanatory but hidden formulas. Economists take those formulas seriously even though they don't believe that people and institutions explicitly and consciously use them.

”First, this growth might soon be inhibited by limiting factors.”

"Sure, and aliens might grow under mushrooms too. Let’s make sure the law accounts for that possibility too."

The implicit assumption that gave your growth trend any relevance in the debate was that it was going to continue unbridled. Questioning that assumption is not the same as speculating that aliens grow under mushrooms. Such geometric and exponential growth curves (whichever you were claiming) always are eventually inhibited by some limiting factors which usually cannot be detected far in advance.

"controlling two consenting adults"
"...to show that straight people are fully empowered to micro-manage the affairs of homosexuals"

It's not about controlling them. It's about whether the state has any interest in spending resources on their consensual activities.

'I showed you that that the State does far worse than “break even” when married people have children. What happened to your response to that fact?'

It doesn't matter whether the state does far worse than break even when married people have children. It matters how the state does when people have or will have children get married. If you don't understand that distinction, this whole debate must be meaningless to you.

"Nobody’s talking about giving children money."

It was an analogy. A pretty direct analogy. We're talking about spending resources on their parents' relationship. What I'm saying is that it doesn't help the children as much as it costs the state the spend resources on their parents plus all the homosexual couples who will have no children.

OFF TOPIC DISCUSSION

"And so you participate in the same act and are guilty of the same crime."

I mimicked you for illustrative purposes. Your response here is obtuse.

"That’s not the reason I said it. I said it because it looks like the truth. When someone struggles so valiantly to defend the indefensible, it is only logical to search for the true reason behind their fervor."

Agreed. That's why I'm searching for the true reason that you are so resistant to the idea that the fact of procreation influences marriage and thus marriage laws. Presumably because you have been indoctrinated with the idea that it is solely a civil rights issue, and thus assume any argument that could undermine what you feel you are entitled to is wrong.

"...reminds me of Ptolemy's cycles and epicycles."

"Procreation influences marriage laws" = epicycles? For this to be analogous to epicycles, someone would have had to show that there is something wrong about that four-word statement, requiring me to make a new, independent assertion to compensate. You have questioned whether I have a sufficient basis for the assertion, but you have never directly attacked it. But be my guest. What facts would you like to introduce to show that procreation has not influenced marriage laws?

'As far as "anti" arguments, the best bet is religion'

That argument is nonsensical. Marriage in the eyes of the state is latching onto the social aspect of marriage, not the religious. The state's relationship with marriage has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

"They are indeed anecdotal"

Yes, and so are the baldest form of pseudo-science. You have engaged in pseudo-science, I have not. Let's move on.

"but on its own it sure looks like an attempt to submit your thesis to some sort of scientific analysis."

Science and logic are not the same.

Your last response had much more attacking and much less engagement. If you don't think that you can discuss my arguments because you think they're terrible, fine. But please don't waste our time by assuming my bad faith or just replying with unthoughtful comments.

 

I'm going in a different direction here.

I think we should abolish ALL marriage- gay and straight.

Here's the deal- marriage is a religious ceremony. Every religion has its own wedding ritual.

The government has no place offering tax benefits, dower rights, or incentives to get married. Besides the costly and despicible processes of divorce, inheritance, and community property, it also creates nonsense such as people marrying for citizenship, or for native american tribal income.

Marriage in the legal sense should be abolished for ALL. There is no sanctity in a government sponsored holiday (like President's Day). There IS sanctity in a religious ceremony. But it's not for the government to recognise every religion's various ceremonies.

 

Is marriage really just about "love?" I think not. It's about societal norms. It's about legal rights. It's about families. It's about generations. It's about example. It's about commitment. It's about tax breaks. It's about parental roles. If it were just about "love" then I could marry my dog and two kids at the local middle-school could get married as well. It's not only about love.

 

Gay Marriage is wrong, Gay love is wrong, Humans are one of the very few if not only species that experience Gay love. Simply because it is not natural, Gay couples cannot reproduce, therefore defeating the whole purpose of love, if you want a partner for support, then being friends is surely enough, there is no need to engage in anything sexual, having gay sex also completely defeats the whole purpose of the act.

That being said, there is no reason to hate gay people, no reason to isolate them, even gay people contribute to the community, as long as it stays a minority then it will be fine, it Definitely should NOT be encouraged, in fact it should be looked down upon as society is doing now, we cannot force our young into making choices, however we CAN guide them into making the better one and if being gay is widely accepted, many explore this without concern for the concenquence of such an act then it would become a problem and have a negative effect on society.

 

For anyone who tries to follow these threads of arguments and rebuttals, it looks like chasbas' argument which I rebutted on Feb 07, 2007 07:09 has been deleted, presumably by chasbas. I wish the argument/rebuttal system on the site were better.

 

Which side are you on?

 

Well if it was natural for men to marry men from the beginning of time, then why did God create Adam and Eve? Why the creation of women if men are sexually satisfied with men?

The thing that makes us different from animals is our brain, our mind, thats what makes humans special. Now, have you ever heard of "gay" animals? A male animal mates with a female animal to reproduce. They know better that males can't mate with males. By allowing gay marriages, we have lowered ourselves not just to the level of animals, but even lower because apparently animals know better in this matter.

Women exist for a reason, and that goes the same with men. Playing with human nature produces bad results like HIV.