Why I'm opposed to gay marriage

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 19 NEXT
 

Homophobia=Irrational fear of, aversion towards and/or discrimination against homosexuality/homosexuals.

Seekster:

Hazy992:

Seekster:
Have it as "Civil Marriage" or "Legal Marriage" in the law code or wherever it appears and we are golden. It doesnt matter to me if people want to just shorten it to marriage in conversation.

Personally, I think it would be better to just remove any notions of gender. That way there's no implied (however slight) difference. Churches still don't have to recognise it of course.

Seekster:
I said I am uneasy about the potential for social harm. As I said earlier, give us a generation of anecdotal evidence that the full legal recognition of same-sex marriage does not lead to any long term social ills and I can promise you that opposition to it will plummet.

Well ok then. But so far signs seem to point that it does no harm.

How exactly is the government supposed to remove notions of gender? Nevermind the fact that men and women are inescapably different in many many ways.

Yes so far everything looks fine though again, half the countries that both recognize and perform same-sex marriages have only begun doing so within the last 3 years so it is far too early to satisfy most people who may be worried about the issue.

Gender is a social construct. Birth sex is different from gender.

Same-sex marriages have been legal for 10-20 years in some states/regions. There is ZERO to suggest that it's an issue, and a lot to suggest in fact it's helped these regions where marriage equality is legalized. This is why the homophobia label gets slung around, because it clearly applies. You are irrationally anxious about homosexuality and same-sex relationships being given the "A OK" stamp of approval from the government and by our society.

Volf99:
what? Seriously, what? Have you read what I've posted, at all? I stated that the only thing that I wish to "claim" or "have" exclusive to heterosexuals is A SINGLE WORD, MARRIAGE.

I've read what you've written. It's all irrational. The word marriage is not exclusive to heterosexuals, and you're not entitled to exclusivity of the word marriage. And it's insulting you think you are.

I have repeatedly stated over and over and over and over again that if homosexual marriage was called something else, I would be in full support,

"Homosexual marriage" is marriage, and called marriage accordingly. Whether you support that or not is immaterial.

which means I would support homosexual couples having the same tax/spousal/[whatever legal benefit I'm missing] rights as heterosexual couples.

That doesn't make you in favor of equality. Equality is marriage for same and opposite sex couples. You're for inequality. Separate but equal has been proven to be unequal.

As for my stance being homophobic,....I'm going to assume in good faith you haven't read what I wrote about the use of that word. So here...

Homophobia=Irrational fear of, aversion towards, and/or discrimination against homosexuality/homosexuals.

This is the medical definition. You actually do not seem homophobic as an individual, but your position on marriage equality is rooted in a homophobic mentality.

Actually seeing as how I am not a felon, and I am a United States of America citizen, and I have lived here my whole life, I am with in my rights to vote for whatever bill(or [insert legal term that equally applies here]) I choose, just as the people in the state of California were in their rights to vote in favor or against proposition 8.You do not have the legal power to determine what I can or can not vote for. Also, you can name call people with opinions other than your own all you want.

You don't have the right to vote on the legal rights of legal citizens. Legal citizens require equal rights and amendments such as Prop 8 are ANIMUS against homosexual persons which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So, no, you actually do not have any right to strip legal rights away from legal citizens, and not only that, to do so is about as heartless, inhumane and disgusting as it gets. Anyone who would vote for an amendment such as Prop 8 are un-American.

Everybody imposes their beliefs on each other when they pass laws on social issues like this.

It is not a belief that legal citizens require equal rights. It is a reality of the principles of the United States of America. The only people wishing to change and avoid adhering to these principles are those who seek to institutionalize social and legal discrimination against the gay community based on animus. You are forcing your beliefs on the gay community and forcing the gay community to adhere to your beliefs.

[quote]As for my beliefs being homophobic, I'm heterosexual and I'm not uncertain about that so please look at what I already said about that word. In fact wikipedia might give you a better understanding of what I'm referring to when I describe homophobia.

One doesn't need to be gay to realize what homophobia is, and who is and isn't homophobic.

The fact you continue to source wikipedia shows me you're really swimming up a stream without a paddle. Ultimately, do I think you're homophobic? No. But being against the marriage equality rights of same-sex couples is based on homophobia, is illogical, and is a way of thinking that is slowly dying. You are on the wrong side of history and you cannot justify the unjust.

101flyboy:

Volf99:
what? Seriously, what? Have you read what I've posted, at all? I stated that the only thing that I wish to "claim" or "have" exclusive to heterosexuals is A SINGLE WORD, MARRIAGE.

I've read what you've written. It's all irrational. The word marriage is not exclusive to heterosexuals, and you're not entitled to exclusivity of the word marriage. And it's insulting you think you are.

I have repeatedly stated over and over and over and over again that if homosexual marriage was called something else, I would be in full support,

"Homosexual marriage" is marriage, and called marriage accordingly. Whether you support that or not is immaterial.

which means I would support homosexual couples having the same tax/spousal/[whatever legal benefit I'm missing] rights as heterosexual couples.

That doesn't make you in favor of equality. Equality is marriage for same and opposite sex couples. You're for inequality. Separate but equal has been proven to be unequal.

As for my stance being homophobic,....I'm going to assume in good faith you haven't read what I wrote about the use of that word. So here...

Homophobia=Irrational fear of, aversion towards, and/or discrimination against homosexuality/homosexuals.

This is the medical definition. You actually do not seem homophobic as an individual, but your position on marriage equality is rooted in a homophobic mentality.

Actually seeing as how I am not a felon, and I am a United States of America citizen, and I have lived here my whole life, I am with in my rights to vote for whatever bill(or [insert legal term that equally applies here]) I choose, just as the people in the state of California were in their rights to vote in favor or against proposition 8.You do not have the legal power to determine what I can or can not vote for. Also, you can name call people with opinions other than your own all you want.

You don't have the right to vote on the legal rights of legal citizens. Legal citizens require equal rights and amendments such as Prop 8 are ANIMUS against homosexual persons which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So, no, you actually do not have any right to strip legal rights away from legal citizens, and not only that, to do so is about as heartless, inhumane and disgusting as it gets. Anyone who would vote for an amendment such as Prop 8 are un-American.

Everybody imposes their beliefs on each other when they pass laws on social issues like this.

It is not a belief that legal citizens require equal rights. It is a reality of the principles of the United States of America. The only people wishing to change and avoid adhering to these principles are those who seek to institutionalize social and legal discrimination against the gay community based on animus. You are forcing your beliefs on the gay community and forcing the gay community to adhere to your beliefs.

[quote]As for my beliefs being homophobic, I'm heterosexual and I'm not uncertain about that so please look at what I already said about that word. In fact wikipedia might give you a better understanding of what I'm referring to when I describe homophobia.

One doesn't need to be gay to realize what homophobia is, and who is and isn't homophobic.

The fact you continue to source wikipedia shows me you're really swimming up a stream without a paddle. Ultimately, do I think you're homophobic? No. But being against the marriage equality rights of same-sex couples is based on homophobia, is illogical, and is a way of thinking that is slowly dying. You are on the wrong side of history and you cannot justify the unjust.

nice ad hominem about wikipedia.
So you don't think I'm homophic but you think being against calling homosexual unions a marriage is based on homophobia? What?

As for history, only time will tell.

It's based on homophobia because it's an irrational way of thinking, which is based on a discrimination against homosexuality more often than not.

Hazy992:

Seekster:
How exactly is the government supposed to remove notions of gender? Nevermind the fact that men and women are inescapably different in many many ways.

I meant not mentioning gender in the definition. Instead of defining marriage as 'a civil union between a man and a woman' it could be defined as 'a civil union between two people' or 'a civil union betweeen two adults'. Simple :)

Seekster:
Yes so far everything looks fine though again, half the countries that both recognize and perform same-sex marriages have only begun doing so within the last 3 years so it is far too early to satisfy most people who may be worried about the issue.

Yeah ok. I think after 10 years that should be enough to satisfy people who are worried about this. Would you agree?

As long as it the civil definition you can call it whatever you want so long as you can get the people to sign off on it.

10 years would make people satisfied enough to be less hostile towards the idea. 20 years would basically end most of it if there were no issues. 20 years is key because thats where you go from one generation to another.

101flyboy:

Seekster:

Hazy992:

Personally, I think it would be better to just remove any notions of gender. That way there's no implied (however slight) difference. Churches still don't have to recognise it of course.

Well ok then. But so far signs seem to point that it does no harm.

How exactly is the government supposed to remove notions of gender? Nevermind the fact that men and women are inescapably different in many many ways.

Yes so far everything looks fine though again, half the countries that both recognize and perform same-sex marriages have only begun doing so within the last 3 years so it is far too early to satisfy most people who may be worried about the issue.

Gender is a social construct. Birth sex is different from gender.

Same-sex marriages have been legal for 10-20 years in some states/regions. There is ZERO to suggest that it's an issue, and a lot to suggest in fact it's helped these regions where marriage equality is legalized. This is why the homophobia label gets slung around, because it clearly applies. You are irrationally anxious about homosexuality and same-sex relationships being given the "A OK" stamp of approval from the government and by our society.

Oh don't get grammatical on me. Gender is a social construct and society will construct it however society wishes thank you. Please for the love of God do not make this issue even more complicated by bring the transgendered into it. That is another issue entirely.

In 2001 the Netherlands became the first nation to legally recognize same-sex marriage. In what universe was 2001 twenty years ago?

I would argue that you are the one being rational here as you swing the homophobia label around like a club, hitting anyone you disagree with. If you want to engage in demagoguery then begone, this isnt the place for you.

Seekster:

101flyboy:

Seekster:

How exactly is the government supposed to remove notions of gender? Nevermind the fact that men and women are inescapably different in many many ways.

Yes so far everything looks fine though again, half the countries that both recognize and perform same-sex marriages have only begun doing so within the last 3 years so it is far too early to satisfy most people who may be worried about the issue.

Gender is a social construct. Birth sex is different from gender.

Same-sex marriages have been legal for 10-20 years in some states/regions. There is ZERO to suggest that it's an issue, and a lot to suggest in fact it's helped these regions where marriage equality is legalized. This is why the homophobia label gets slung around, because it clearly applies. You are irrationally anxious about homosexuality and same-sex relationships being given the "A OK" stamp of approval from the government and by our society.

Oh don't get grammatical on me. Gender is a social construct and society will construct it however society wishes thank you. Please for the love of God do not make this issue even more complicated by bring the transgendered into it. That is another issue entirely.

In 2001 the Netherlands became the first nation to legally recognize same-sex marriage. In what universe was 2001 twenty years ago?

I would argue that you are the one being rational here as you swing the homophobia label around like a club, hitting anyone you disagree with. If you want to engage in demagoguery then begone, this isnt the place for you.

Trans individuals are into it, whether you accept that reality or not. Trans individuals are part of the LGBT community and require equality as well. And putting aside transgender issues for a second, gender ultimately is what an INDIVIDUAL makes it, and nothing more. Society cannot construct an individuals' gender. So, what you said in terms of the government and gender is fundamentally incorrect.

20 years was an overreach, I admit. Regardless, same-sex relationships have been socially recognized in many of these countries as valid and just for much longer than 10 years. Just because respective governments don't recognize these relationships as marriage don't make them illegal, they're just not governmentally valid. Legal or not legal, same-sex couples have entered relationships and had ceremonies and have been recognized as a part of the society they live in, for more than 10 years. And nothing has come from it.

I haven't called any individual here homophobic, so you can put away your victim card.

101flyboy:

Seekster:

101flyboy:
Gender is a social construct. Birth sex is different from gender.

Same-sex marriages have been legal for 10-20 years in some states/regions. There is ZERO to suggest that it's an issue, and a lot to suggest in fact it's helped these regions where marriage equality is legalized. This is why the homophobia label gets slung around, because it clearly applies. You are irrationally anxious about homosexuality and same-sex relationships being given the "A OK" stamp of approval from the government and by our society.

Oh don't get grammatical on me. Gender is a social construct and society will construct it however society wishes thank you. Please for the love of God do not make this issue even more complicated by bring the transgendered into it. That is another issue entirely.

In 2001 the Netherlands became the first nation to legally recognize same-sex marriage. In what universe was 2001 twenty years ago?

I would argue that you are the one being rational here as you swing the homophobia label around like a club, hitting anyone you disagree with. If you want to engage in demagoguery then begone, this isnt the place for you.

Trans individuals are into it, whether you accept that reality or not. Trans individuals are part of the LGBT community and require equality as well. And putting aside transgender issues for a second, gender ultimately is what an INDIVIDUAL makes it, and nothing more. Society cannot construct an individuals' gender. So, what you said in terms of the government and gender is fundamentally incorrect.

20 years was an overreach, I admit. Regardless, same-sex relationships have been socially recognized in many of these countries as valid and just for much longer than 10 years. Just because respective governments don't recognize these relationships as marriage don't make them illegal, their just not governmentally valid. Legal or not legal, same-sex couples have entered relationships and had ceremonies and have been recognized as a part of the society they live in, for more than 10 years. And nothing has come from it.

I haven't called any individual here homophobic, so you can put away your victim card.

Yes yes I know, I mentioned that odd situation in parts of Texas where since your gender is decided at birth according to law, a transgendered girl (born guy) can legally marry a female and its recognized and all that.

Actually since gender is a social construct I would say yes, an individuals gender is constructed by the society they exist in, at least partially. That is of course if you want to try and take the "progressive" approach to gender which is needlessly complicated and just oozes political correctness.

How could you know if nothing has come from it if you don't even know what social conservatives would be looking for in the first place? Just curious.

I never received a victim card, that was my pissed off card. Very well I'll put it away but I'm watching you.

Seekster:
Yes yes I know, I mentioned that odd situation in parts of Texas where since your gender is decided at birth according to law, a transgendered girl (born guy) can legally marry a female and its recognized and all that.

Yes, but that's really just a loophole in a bigoted law and still doesn't afford equal rights to all trans persons in the state.

Actually since gender is a social construct I would say yes, an individuals gender is constructed by the society they exist in, at least partially. That is of course if you want to try and take the "progressive" approach to gender which is needlessly complicated and just oozes political correctness.

I will say that how a person behaves is influenced by the society they exist in. For example, men tend to act more traditionally masculine in America because of America's socially backwards views on gender roles. But that's not the same as saying a persons' basic gender identity is socially constructed. A transgendered individual is a transgendered individual. Now, how they embrace this reality and act this out is socially constructed, but that does not change who the person is. The problem is not accepting a person for who they are and forcing them into neat little boxes instead of tackling issues that may be uncomfortable.

How could you know if nothing has come from it if you don't even know what social conservatives would be looking for in the first place? Just curious.

Because what social conservatives are looking for doesn't exist.

101flyboy:

Seekster:
Yes yes I know, I mentioned that odd situation in parts of Texas where since your gender is decided at birth according to law, a transgendered girl (born guy) can legally marry a female and its recognized and all that.

Yes, but that's really just a loophole in a bigoted law and still doesn't afford equal rights to all trans persons in the state.

Actually since gender is a social construct I would say yes, an individuals gender is constructed by the society they exist in, at least partially. That is of course if you want to try and take the "progressive" approach to gender which is needlessly complicated and just oozes political correctness.

I will say that how a person behaves is influenced by the society they exist in. For example, men tend to act more traditionally masculine in America because of America's socially backwards views on gender roles. But that's not the same as saying a persons' basic gender identity is socially constructed. A transgendered individual is a transgendered individual. Now, how they embrace this reality and act this out is socially constructed, but that does not change who the person is. The problem is not accepting a person for who they are and forcing them into neat little boxes instead of tackling issues that may be uncomfortable.

How could you know if nothing has come from it if you don't even know what social conservatives would be looking for in the first place? Just curious.

Because what social conservatives are looking for doesn't exist.

I never said it did.

Sorry in a backwards country men act like men? You are funny.

"Because what social conservatives are looking for doesn't exist."

If you don't know what we are looking for how could you know it doesnt exist? Clearly you havnt the slightest understanding of social conservatives beyond your own bigoted stereotypes.

Elcarsh:

I'm really more curious about the excuse for why this hasn't been a problem in Sweden, where we already have gender-neutral marriage legislation. Our society has yet to crumble into ruin, and the plagues of frogs and locusts isn't that big of a deal for us.

Yeah, hence the slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy. It is just a sort of fear mongering. It is also why this fallacy is kind of hard to catch. You think "I don't want that" rather than "Wait, that makes no sense". Although maybe polygamous marriage will follow, but is it a problem? Honestly I think if polygamy hasn't become a big issue like gay marriage and civil rights by now, it isn't going to. Hell, Utah even had polygamy for a while. Last I heard that got outlawed. I think the way our system is now, it would make polygamy a bloody nightmare.

Elcarsh:
Our society has yet to crumble into ruin, and the plagues of frogs and locusts isn't that big of a deal for us.

Not even a minor plague of flies? You known! One of those summers there seemed to be more than usual? Perhaps that can be blamed on the same sex marriage:P

Volf99:
Admittedly that is a small part of it, but the major annoyance I have with the incorrect usage of the word has to do with homophobia being considered a disorder because it has to do with this.

But that is not what the term homophobia refers to, is it? That is a proposed basis of homophobia, a proposed reason why somebody might dislike homosexuals. I don't think it applies to everybody, I could imagine it applying to some, but most people who hate homosexuals, who are homophobes, do so out of bigotry, not out of anxiety over the self-image of their sexuality.

So as far as I can see, saying someone is homophobic because they hate homosexuals [...] is about as accurate as saying someone is "retarded" just because they might be(for a lack of better words)struggling to understand how to use multiplication. Yes a mental retarded person would also struggle with multiplication, but it would be for a far different reason.

Then why don't you apply this rigorous, literalistic standard that is completely out of phase with how the rest of society uses a word to the other example I gave, xenophobia?

I can't believe a thread about a blatant logical fallacy exploded like this. that slippery slope is slippery, people.

However, while I'm here: I feel the legalization of gay marriage shouldn't happen. There is a solid reason for that, and it is called compromise. The issue for most parties right now is that marriage is viewed as something sanctimonious that should be respected. The secularization (read: recognition by the government) of marriage is what single-handedly ruined the sacred nature of marriage. The solution is simple, end the federal recognition of marriage and re-title all current marriages as civil unions. Allow homosexual couples to get civil unions. (it is already clear and understood civil unions are between two citizens, read: people)

This preserves the sanctity of marriage, causing it to be nothing more than a religious institution, and allows homosexual couples the rights they wish for.

Everyone happy.

jboking:

This preserves the sanctity of marriage, causing it to be nothing more than a religious institution, and allows homosexual couples the rights they wish for.

Everyone happy.

Except for atheists who want to get married I guess.

Amnestic:

jboking:

This preserves the sanctity of marriage, causing it to be nothing more than a religious institution, and allows homosexual couples the rights they wish for.

Everyone happy.

Except for atheists who want to get married I guess.

Atheists who want to get married...In this world, why? To display to others that they are connected? Then join together in a civil union.

If they want to fake being religious, then just find a church willing to do it.

jboking:
I can't believe a thread about a blatant logical fallacy exploded like this. that slippery slope is slippery, people.

However, while I'm here: I feel the legalization of gay marriage shouldn't happen. There is a solid reason for that, and it is called compromise. The issue for most parties right now is that marriage is viewed as something sanctimonious that should be respected. The secularization (read: recognition by the government) of marriage is what single-handedly ruined the sacred nature of marriage. The solution is simple, end the federal recognition of marriage and re-title all current marriages as civil unions. Allow homosexual couples to get civil unions. (it is already clear and understood civil unions are between two citizens, read: people)

This preserves the sanctity of marriage, causing it to be nothing more than a religious institution, and allows homosexual couples the rights they wish for.

Everyone happy.

Okay, here's a flaw in your theory; what religion claims domain over the word "Marriage"? How long has this been the case (hint: the "sanctitiy" is only a relatively recent invention in the grand scheme of things). Like Amnestic said, what about the Athiests?

Also your "compromise" is quite frankly a stupid idea even if it did work; religious people would resent homosexuals for making them lose out the legal right to call it marriage, which will lead to further discrimination and homophobia in future. So in an effort to compromise on one problem, you've gone and created countless more in the process.

Shaoken:

Okay, here's a flaw in your theory; what religion claims domain over the word "Marriage"? How long has this been the case (hint: the "sanctitiy" is only a relatively recent invention in the grand scheme of things). Like Amnestic said, what about the Athiests?

Which ever religion claims it can have it. You get married by one church and in that churches eyes, you are married. Atheists can still get a civil union, just as anyone else, and if they want to pretend they are religious, then find a church that would go along with it.

Also your "compromise" is quite frankly a stupid idea even if it did work; religious people would resent homosexuals for making them lose out the legal right to call it marriage, which will lead to further discrimination and homophobia in future. So in an effort to compromise on one problem, you've gone and created countless more in the process.

Because their current discrimination is totally going to stop if we maintain the status quo. Sure, people will be upset for a while, but how would what they do then be any different from what they do now? Please explain.

jboking:

Amnestic:

jboking:

This preserves the sanctity of marriage, causing it to be nothing more than a religious institution, and allows homosexual couples the rights they wish for.

Everyone happy.

Except for atheists who want to get married I guess.

Atheists who want to get married...In this world, why? To display to others that they are connected? Then join together in a civil union.

Because there's an established culture around the word 'marriage' already and there's a stigma against civil unions - especially in the US - that they're 'lesser' compared to marriages?

Why not just have them all be called marriages? The secular ones already are, so why change it? To make bigots happy? No thanks mate.

Feel free to define "sanctity of marriage" while you're here though, I'm still waiting for a concrete definition of the term.

jboking:

Shaoken:

Okay, here's a flaw in your theory; what religion claims domain over the word "Marriage"? How long has this been the case (hint: the "sanctitiy" is only a relatively recent invention in the grand scheme of things). Like Amnestic said, what about the Athiests?

Which ever religion claims it can have it. You get married by one church and in that churches eyes, you are married. Atheists can still get a civil union, just as anyone else, and if they want to pretend they are religious, then find a church that would go along with it.

Also your "compromise" is quite frankly a stupid idea even if it did work; religious people would resent homosexuals for making them lose out the legal right to call it marriage, which will lead to further discrimination and homophobia in future. So in an effort to compromise on one problem, you've gone and created countless more in the process.

Because their current discrimination is totally going to stop if we maintain the status quo. Sure, people will be upset for a while, but how would what they do then be any different from what they do now? Please explain.

Or alternatively, legalise gay marriage like the 10 or so countries that have and are perfectly okay with it, and watch those problems fade away over the years, just like how interracial marriage was discriminated against to begin with, but now is perfectly acceptable.

You're also missing that marriage has taken on a non-religious meaning in society, and thus giving it exclusively to religion when religion does not have a monopoly on the concept or the word is just stupid. Non-religious marriage concepts are nothing new, so why pretend like religion owns the word? You can't even define what religion actually owns the word, or what this supposed "sancity" means.

Amnestic:

Because there's an established culture around the word 'marriage' already and there's a stigma against civil unions - especially in the US - that they're 'lesser' compared to marriages?

Why not just have them all be called marriages? The secular ones already are, so why change it? To make bigots happy? No thanks mate.

There is a stigma as civil unions being the lesser of marriages because, as it stands, they are. They do not provide the same level of rights. The solution is to give the benefits of marriage to civil unions and then end the recognition of marriage. The reason for this is because the only large argument I've heard against gay marriage is about it "destroying the sanctity of marriage." By making it an exclusively religious thing, we effectively shut down the only major argument against giving homosexual people their rights.

This isn't to make bigots happy, it's to shut them up. It is honestly more of a test to see if the "sanctity of marriage" argument that you see brandied about so much is something that is actually supported or if it is actually just that certain people are bigots (hint: it's not the former).

Shaoken:

You're also missing that marriage has taken on a non-religious meaning in society, and thus giving it exclusively to religion when religion does not have a monopoly on the concept or the word is just stupid. Non-religious marriage concepts are nothing new, so why pretend like religion owns the word? You can't even define what religion actually owns the word, or what this supposed "sancity" means.

This is done more as a thought rather than a serious plan. Refer to the end of my response to Amnestic. It is an argument I've used against people who oppose gay marriage under the pretense that it "destroys the sanctity of marriage." It is never supported, where, if the "sanctity of marriage" is the real issue, it should be supported.

All I ask is why? Why do some people have so much troubles with two people getting married, if they happen to have the same sex? I have read this entire thread and not a single, rational reason has been given. All I see is people talking out of their ass and acting on emotion instead of facing the facts.

Bassik:
All I ask is why? Why do some people have so much troubles with two people getting married, if they happen to have the same sex? I have read this entire thread and not a single, rational reason has been given. All I see is people talking out of their ass and acting on emotion instead of facing the facts.

"I have read this entire thread and not a single, rational reason has been given."

Then either you havnt read the entire thread or what you actually meant is "no reason I agree with has been given".

Seekster:

Bassik:
All I ask is why? Why do some people have so much troubles with two people getting married, if they happen to have the same sex? I have read this entire thread and not a single, rational reason has been given. All I see is people talking out of their ass and acting on emotion instead of facing the facts.

"I have read this entire thread and not a single, rational reason has been given."

Then either you havnt read the entire thread or what you actually meant is "no reason I agree with has been given".

Give an arguement against gay marriage that wasnt used against inter racial marriage. Go.

History has shown that wherever injustice exists, wherever a minority is oppressed, the old cantankerous oppressors die. They die. And the liberal, loving, young generation EMBRACES the difference the previous generation shunned, and rights are once again given to those who deserve them. Name a time in history where people fought for their rights in the USA and lost. People are naturally liberal. Children are programmed to shoot off from their parents and rebel. And its beautiful. Because it inspires change. In the old. In the injust. In the deep rooted hatred and intolerence. For as long as men die an ingrown hatred can never last forever.

BiscuitTrouser:

Seekster:

Bassik:
All I ask is why? Why do some people have so much troubles with two people getting married, if they happen to have the same sex? I have read this entire thread and not a single, rational reason has been given. All I see is people talking out of their ass and acting on emotion instead of facing the facts.

"I have read this entire thread and not a single, rational reason has been given."

Then either you havnt read the entire thread or what you actually meant is "no reason I agree with has been given".

Give an arguement against gay marriage that wasnt used against inter racial marriage. Go.

History has shown that wherever injustice exists, wherever a minority is oppressed, the old cantankerous oppressors die. They die. And the liberal, loving, young generation EMBRACES the difference the previous generation shunned, and rights are once again given to those who deserve them. Name a time in history where people fought for their rights in the USA and lost. People are naturally liberal. Children are programmed to shoot off from their parents and rebel. And its beautiful. Because it inspires change. In the old. In the injust. In the deep rooted hatred and intolerence. For as long as men die an ingrown hatred can never last forever.

Why should I? That doesnt get us anywhere because the gay marriage issue and the inter-racial marriage issue are not related to each other and have many many key differences. For example, inter-racial marriage was actually illegal (you could be arrested for being in an interracial marriage). Same-sex marriage in the United States is legal but not legally recognized in most states.

History has shown that people are always going to be oppressed and the old are going to die. These to things are not related. As the "liberal loving young generation" grows up and gains in wisdom they become more Conservative.

It is true that with few exceptions each successive generation is likely going to be more permissive than the one that came before it but this is due to a generational gap. The notion that people are naturally liberal is absurd on its face and if I ever need to be amused I will ask you to try and defend that.

I must say you have a very narrow and thoughtless view of history and the human condition. I would advice you put more effort into thinking about these two things in the future to avoid future embarrassment.

And just because I feel like being a smart arse:

"Name a time in history where people fought for their rights in the USA and lost."

Native Americans, sorry you said time, um...how about all the time, at least according to them.

Seekster:
SNIP

My implication was that all arguements against gay marriage were used against those who wanted inter racial marriage to be llegal. And they were refuted and agreed to be fallacious then. I simply ask that if it was so then, why is it not now? Even with different circumstances.

All right. Ill give you native americans. But it seems that once America was founded on the basis of freedom and the constitution drafted and such, any time America has denied its citizens freedom its come off... a little bit hypocritical. And as such tends to lose such issues simply because it very clearly set out from the beggining that its entire premise of the nation would be that these debates shouldnt need to happen.

I must admit "liberal" at heart was a poor way of putting it. What im trying to say is newer generations tend to me more accepting of new ideas. Liberal perhaps is a poor word for it. Oh hell it is a poor word. What im saying is that rebellion to old ideas is pretty much a given if a society is given time, especially now in the age of wants and not needs new generations seem to be more contrary to a parents views and values simply because they can. Pretty much the last 50 years is a show of this, many values that are very old and well rooted were pretty much thrown away by the next generation simply because they wanted to branch out.

So yes. You are right, we are not naturally liberal i spoke poorly and without much thought for what i was trying to convey there. We tend to be naturally accepting of newer ideas when younger. And as we mature we do become more conservative as we slowly fill the role our parents did, but the lines move and the issues shift and very slowly ground is won. Of course there will always be an issue like you said, but progress, no matter how small, is worth celebrating.

I will probably be conservative about a new issue that arises when i am an adult, wanting to cling to what i see as the norm and reject the new, and i will be filling the same role I now fight against. Its cyclical, and although poorly articulated i have given this more thought than you give me credit for. Honestly you win your side no points from talking down to me, if you wish to debate in a more friendly and proffessional manor treat every point made, even if you view it as idiotic, seriously and with respect and you might get further.

EDIT Accidental double post. I hate this website lag. I really wish i didnt have such weird issues with this site :/

BiscuitTrouser:
My implication was that all arguements against gay marriage were used against those who wanted inter racial marriage to be llegal. And they were refuted and agreed to be fallacious then. I simply ask that if it was so then, why is it not now? Even with different circumstances.

Some were similar yes but the issues are too different for that to imply anything. All not so much.

Because marriage between a man and a woman has always been the way it has been in the United States. It was not made that way to discriminate against anyone, thats just the way it is. The laws adding in the racial component to marriage were adding an unnecessary and frivolous change all for the purposes of discriminating against a certain group of people. Furthermore interracial marriage was made illegal, this is very very different from simply not recognizing a marriage. Nobody is going to be arrested in the United States for being in a same-sex marriage.

BiscuitTrouser:
All right. Ill give you native americans. But it seems that once America was founded on the basis of freedom and the constitution drafted and such, any time America has denied its citizens freedom its come off... a little bit hypocritical. And as such tends to lose such issues simply because it very clearly set out from the beggining that its entire premise of the nation would be that these debates shouldnt need to happen.

I disagree, the premise of the nation is that debates like this SHOULD happen. A free society is entitled to debate and disagree about things.

BiscuitTrouser:
I must admit "liberal" at heart was a poor way of putting it. What im trying to say is newer generations tend to me more accepting of new ideas. Liberal perhaps is a poor word for it. Oh hell it is a poor word. What im saying is that rebellion to old ideas is pretty much a given if a society is given time, especially now in the age of wants and not needs new generations seem to be more contrary to a parents views and values simply because they can. Pretty much the last 50 years is a show of this, many values that are very old and well rooted were pretty much thrown away by the next generation simply because they wanted to branch out.

You are not entirely wrong there though it is an oversimplification of things. Yes young adults rebel but they eventually grow up and are forced to take responsibility for their own actions if they wish to succeed in the world. Some things will always change but other things, particularly ideals and values, will persist for generations. I can guarantee you things will always change, as to what exactly will change and how, that is something we can only speculate about. Keep in mind though, the values of the past may be scorned in the present, someday though the values of the present will become the values of the past in the future and in that present they will likewise be scorned. Some values mind you, not all.

BiscuitTrouser:
So yes. You are right, we are not naturally liberal i spoke poorly and without much thought for what i was trying to convey there. We tend to be naturally accepting of newer ideas when younger. And as we mature we do become more conservative as we slowly fill the role our parents did, but the lines move and the issues shift and very slowly ground is won. Of course there will always be an issue like you said, but progress, no matter how small, is worth celebrating.

Time moves forward but only wobbles left or right. We must always be wary of becoming too pleased with ourselves. With each step forward we are able to see further challenges ahead which we could not see before. As such, actual progress is a subjective matter.

BiscuitTrouser:
I will probably be conservative about a new issue that arises when i am an adult, wanting to cling to what i see as the norm and reject the new, and i will be filling the same role I now fight against. Its cyclical, and although poorly articulated i have given this more thought than you give me credit for. Honestly you win your side no points from talking down to me, if you wish to debate in a more friendly and professional manor treat every point made, even if you view it as idiotic, seriously and with respect and you might get further.

Sorry, I was too harsh. You just caught me in a bad mood and the "we are all naturally liberal" thing kind of set me off. Still thats no excuse for attacking you personally and I apologize. As for the arrogant bits, yeah I do that sometimes, working on it.

"if you wish to debate in a more friendly and professional manor treat every point made, even if you view it as idiotic, seriously and with respect and you might get further."

That quote should be permanently placed at the top of the RP board so everyone can see it before they enter a discussion.

Seekster:
SNIP

Aw its ok. I realised a long time ago that just stepping back and saying "cmon, no hard feelings, lets have a good debate" goes a LONG way. I found that many posters, although they were rude or talked down to me or seemed arrogant, are just people. And if i treated them with respect independent of how they spoke to me pretty much everyone gave the same response you did, "i was tired and i was in a bad mood, lets keep it civil", the discussion became twice as rewarding. Its fine, everyones human and i can bet ill do this at least once on this forum by the end of the year.

Thanks for the praise, thats very kind of you.

I agree with you on these points mostly. And while its true that the system DOES encourage debates i feel that freedom and liberty for all should be a given if youre going to have it as your tagline, if the debate is "But should there REALLY be the SAME freedom for all" then change the tagline. Otherwise people get confused. I think its good that we argue things, that we make weigh the merits carefully before we change society for the better/worse, but if we are going to have such a firm foundation to the society that lays out some rules, it seems prudent to make sure these things are a given before we make them a foundation for anything.

BiscuitTrouser:
Aw its ok. I realised a long time ago that just stepping back and saying "cmon, no hard feelings, lets have a good debate" goes a LONG way. I found that many posters, although they were rude or talked down to me or seemed arrogant, are just people. And if i treated them with respect independent of how they spoke to me pretty much everyone gave the same response you did, "i was tired and i was in a bad mood, lets keep it civil", the discussion became twice as rewarding. Its fine, everyones human and i can bet ill do this at least once on this forum by the end of the year.

Thanks for the praise, thats very kind of you.

*smiles* That is a very wise way to look at things and similar to what I try and do. Ill attack someone's argument but I try and avoid personal attacks, still sometimes people for some reason or another forget themselves. If you catch me forgetting myself remind me of myself and I will do the same for you deal?

BiscuitTrouser:
I agree with you on these points mostly. And while its true that the system DOES encourage debates i feel that freedom and liberty for all should be a given if youre going to have it as your tagline, if the debate is "But should there REALLY be the SAME freedom for all" then change the tagline. Otherwise people get confused. I think its good that we argue things, that we make weigh the merits carefully before we change society for the better/worse, but if we are going to have such a firm foundation to the society that lays out some rules, it seems prudent to make sure these things are a given before we make them a foundation for anything.

I don't think the debate is so much "who do we give freedom to" as it is "what does freedom mean". I want equal rights for homosexuals and I would argue that legal recognition of same-sex marriage is not necessary to achieve equal rights for homosexuals and is in many ways an unnecessary and unfortunate distraction. The inequality does not come from the lack of recognition of marriage but rather from the denial of the rights and privileges that are generally associated with marriage. Since these rights and privileges are meant to encourage the formation and well being of a family and since its possible to have a family without marriage, it seems only right to change the criteria for these rights and privileges so that marriage is not the central requirement for them.

Marriage shouldn't exist as a legal concept to begin with.

You can love someone but not be married to them, or hate someone yet stay married for the tax benefits, and it seems unfair that the former is taxed differently from the latter, the latter of which may not even live in the same house.

Tax people based not on something as arbitrary as "marriage," and certainly don't be sexist in this regard, but on, perhaps, the number of people in a household or using some other method of calculating this stuff.

(The idea that marriage would be "devalued" from having gays marry is bunk, since we already have ridiculous divorce rates, and so-too do we have couples that marry without having children, a similarly-useless waste of marriage).

Black Arrow Officer:
But allowing gay marriage would increase the number of "joke" or non-serious marriages.

Friends would marry each other to skip on taxes.

1) Kim Kardashian and Britney Spears BOTH had heterosexual marriages which lasted almost no time at all and were essentially marketing stunts.

2) watch Boston Legal.

3) You didn't make a single valid point.

I'd actually love to see the question answered:

Can anyone name a reasonable argument opposing same-sex marriage that could not be applied to interracial marriage?

It doesn't matter if you want to make the distinction or not, the goal is to find any argument that fits the bill, even if you don't support it.

Black Arrow Officer:
I'm aware that the escapist has a large homosexual community. It seems that nearly every person on here is in support of gay marriage. Well, I'm not. Before you rip me to shreds, at least consider my point before ripping me to shreds. I have nothing against homosexual people or if they want to be together, but allowing gay marriage would increase the number of "joke" or non-serious marriages. Friends would marry each other to skip on taxes. Another reason why I'm opposed is because of how far the boundaries of marriage would be pushed. Polygamous or animal marriages could follow shortly after gay marriages. Eventually, the value of marriage would be completely destroyed. I can imagine people would even marry complete strangers just to skip on taxes. Obviously, massive legal overhauls would be required to prevent people from exploiting the system. But then, people in these new marriages would complain that they don't get the same tax breaks or benefits that men and women in true relationships get. But why should that have to happen in the first place? I say stop gay marriage before any of that occurs. Gay couples already have many of the same benefits as regular marriage does. Changes would only occur on paper, and going through all the trouble of legislation would go down in history as the most wasteful and unnecessary period in history.

So, am I a complete monster? Or did I make some interesting points?

While you are not Hitler, and you are entitled to an option that has some views that may make at least syntonical sense, I do not agree to it.

There should only be type of marriage banned.
1
marriage to anyone under 18

2
marriage between any blood relation should be grounds for imprisonment

3
plural marriage due to plain old fair ratio rules.

If two nonrelated adults love each other then regardless of race or creed they should be allowed to marry.

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 19 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked