Are there actually any good arguments out there against allowing gay marriage?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Vegosiux:
Skip right to the bottom if you're only interested in that answer. You're not going to like it, though, I'm sure.

Ok.

Simply put, your question isn't simple.

I can't answer a question, before I know what's being asked, that's why I'm going to, again, politely request that you elaborate on the meaning and substance of the words you used, so that I may avoid misinterpreting it and answering something you didn't ask.

Sure. Legal marriage as it's recognised. The union of marriage.

It's not a trick question, and it really is simple. If you can't get legally married, can you get legally married?

Instead of worring about answering something I didn't ask, just try answering it.

Bottom line is; the moment you elaborate on what you mean by "getting legally married" - the act of signing a document; acquisition of certain rights and benefits; being officially recognized as someone's spouse; being involved in something that's called "marriage"; being involved in the specific kind of relationship that's currently named "marriage" (yes, there's a difference); I don't know any of those? All of those? Something else? - I'm going to answer.

Right now my best answer could only be "Depends on how your jurisdiction handles a non liquet"Remember, the premise is that the word "marriage" would not be used in legislation at all, (I keep forgetting which is which) but I do not find that answer satisfactory, and want to come to a better one. For that, I need something more substance.

If you don't find your answer satisfactory then there's not much else to say. If you think that's your best answer then good for you, my response to it would be that your answer is a non-statement devoid of any meaning or substance, disguised in a lengthy post that is largely about trying to second guess me, look for any sort of trick question to avoid actually answering the question, or bait me into a tedious back and forth with bizarre accusations of me throwing insults or statements that we've done this before (I have no idea who you are for the record).

If that's your best answer then there's nothing left to say. It's a simple question, it shouldn't be that hard to answer.

thaluikhain:

As long as society is granting a right to someone, and withholding it to someone else, that society is saying something about those two groups.

That's an incredibly good way to put it, seriously. And practically, any denial (or revocation) of a right should have a good reason, e.g., not allowing blind people to drive, for a banally obvious case.

I'll just hijack you a little to add that "and in saying that, the society in question is saying something about itself as well."

But really, a very good choice of words there, I like it. I'd have liked it even more if I was the one to come up with it, but alas ^^

thaluikhain:

Shadowstar38:

Pluvia:

And do you mean if there was no benefits to getting married compared to being unmarried, would I still be fighting for that right if it was illegal for some to get married? If so, of course.

Well...that's just bizarre. I'm pretty sure you're in the minority here. See, most people on the side of civil rights focus on rights that have a practical implication.

As much as I'm wary of these sorts of comparisons, is there any practical reason why black people shouldn't always ride at the back of the bus?

Inequality will always exist so long as people aren't equal. Gay marriage might seem like little more than a symbolic step, but it's a massive symbol.

We'll, you're permitting someone to be able to physically go somewhere. I'd call bullshit on anything that does that.

We're also not going to knock out all inequality at one time. That's why I tend to go with the more pragmatic solutions. The symbolism can wait for another day.

Pluvia:

Sure. Legal marriage as it's recognised. The union of marriage.

It's not a trick question, and it really is simple. If you can't get legally married, can you get legally married?

Instead of worring about answering something I didn't ask, just try answering it.

Then it's legal, even if it's not specifically spelled "M-A-R-R-I-A-G-E" in the legislation.

I mean, I'm no lawyer, but I can try answering what a lawyer might do in such a case. Starting with the premise we have, that "marriage", "getting married", etc., do not exist in legislation. There is no law saying that you can "get married", nor is there any law that says you can't "get married".[1]

You ask a lawyer if you can get legally married.

The lawyer will likely tell you that there are no laws referring to "marriage" or "getting married", and then ask you just what exactly you would do if you "got married.", ask you to describe it. Then you'd likely tell the lawyer everything about what "married" people have as rights and benefits, the lawyer would go through the legalese doorstopper books and errata, and tell you

"Yup. Perfectly legal, but you're using an odd (or archaic, unusual, casual) name for it."

If you don't find your answer satisfactory then there's not much else to say. If you think that's your best answer then good for you, my response to it would be that your answer is a non-statement devoid of any meaning or substance, disguised in a lengthy post that is largely about trying to second guess me

I wasn't trying to second-guess you, I was second-guessing you.

look for any sort of trick question to avoid actually answering the question, or bait me into a tedious back and forth with bizarre accusations of me throwing insults or statements that we've done this before (I have no idea who you are for the record).

That was, more than anything else, a frustrated passing remark.

If that's your best answer then there's nothing left to say. It's a simple question, it shouldn't be that hard to answer.

Well, I'm sorry I didn't answer "yes" or "no", but as I said, it's not a simple question, so it can't be answered just "yes" or "no". I'd also call it a somewhat loaded question, thus the second-guessing.

[1] There's no law that says you can't "shank" a person around here, but you shank someone and you'll be in trouble. Legalese simply operates with a different word for that act.

Shadowstar38:

Pluvia:

And do you mean if there was no benefits to getting married compared to being unmarried, would I still be fighting for that right if it was illegal for some to get married? If so, of course.

Well...that's just bizarre. I'm pretty sure you're in the minority here. See, most people on the side of civil rights focus on rights that have a practical implication.

Fighting against Xan's proposal is fighting for the right of a title, which is kind of frivolous when all people like me want is to be able to adopt a kid and see our partners in the hospital, ect...

You need priorities is what I'm saying.

I don't believe so. I don't believe most people only care about being treated equal, or others being treated equal, if it has some sort of benefit for them. I believe that people fight for equality, not for the benefits that equality would bring.

Your fight for equality seems to extend to seperate but equal is ok. Civil unions, for example. "It's equal to marriage, but seperate, so don't even think about trying to get married because it's illegal for you. These people can get married, but you can't. You can keep your civil unions though, it's the same thing we just gave it a different name because we want to keep it illegal for you to get married".

That there? I disagree with that. The law should treat everyone equal.

Vegosiux:
That's an incredibly good way to put it, seriously. And practically, any denial (or revocation) of a right should have a good reason, e.g., not allowing blind people to drive, for a banally obvious case.

I'll just hijack you a little to add that "and in saying that, the society in question is saying something about itself as well."

But really, a very good choice of words there, I like it. I'd have liked it even more if I was the one to come up with it, but alas ^^

Ah, yeah, that's a good extension there.

Shadowstar38:
We're also not going to knock out all inequality at one time. That's why I tend to go with the more pragmatic solutions. The symbolism can wait for another day.

I say this a lot on this forum, but "Why can't people do both at the same time?"

Vegosiux:
Then it's legal, even if it's not specifically spelled "M-A-R-R-I-A-G-E" in the legislation.

I mean, I'm no lawyer, but I can try answering what a lawyer might do in such a case. Starting with the premise we have, that "marriage", "getting married", etc., do not exist in legislation. There is no law saying that you can "get married", nor is there any law that says you can't "get married".

You ask a lawyer if you can get legally married.

The lawyer will likely tell you that there are no laws referring to "marriage" or "getting married", and then ask you just what exactly you would do if you "got married.", ask you to describe it. Then you'd likely tell the lawyer everything about what "married" people have as rights and benefits, the lawyer would go through the legalese doorstopper books and errata, and tell you

"Yup. Perfectly legal, but you're using an odd (or archaic, unusual, casual) name for it."

Perfect, then there's no problem and gay people can get married.

Pluvia:

Perfect, then there's no problem and gay people can get married.

Well yeah, literally the only difference would be the spelling in the official documentation, that's what I've been trying to say all the time by now. You can call it whatever you like though, if it's marriage to you, then it's marriage to you, and what you call "marriage" is legally recognized as a union with all the rights and benefits that come with it.

Pluvia:
These people can get married, but you can't.

You're not allowed to get baptized if you're not a Christian either. But it's legal for you to get dipped in water. But that's probably a non issue to you because it's a religious matter and not legislation. Replacing marriage with civil unions would be like that.

thaluikhain:

Vegosiux:
That's an incredibly good way to put it, seriously. And practically, any denial (or revocation) of a right should have a good reason, e.g., not allowing blind people to drive, for a banally obvious case.

I'll just hijack you a little to add that "and in saying that, the society in question is saying something about itself as well."

But really, a very good choice of words there, I like it. I'd have liked it even more if I was the one to come up with it, but alas ^^

Ah, yeah, that's a good extension there.

Shadowstar38:
We're also not going to knock out all inequality at one time. That's why I tend to go with the more pragmatic solutions. The symbolism can wait for another day.

I say this a lot on this forum, but "Why can't people do both at the same time?"

Because one is more likely to get things done when separated from the other and doing one advances you to the other.

thaluikhain:
Rubbish. Not every legal system handles gay de facto couples the same way, but in places where gay marriage doesn't exist, there are people fighting to bring it about.

That means absolutely nothing to me. Certainly there are areas of the world where people would interfere with and persecute married homosexuals, but this is an issue of culture or governmental overreach.

Marriage is a personal bond between individuals which requires no third party. Ideally it strengthens societal and familial structure to create a community (for raising children, taking care of the old or sick, promoting peace, etc), but ultimately it's a symbol of love and devotion. There is an issue if states do not allow the creation of contracts and free association of individuals, but not giving out goodies to married couples is hardly a violation of human rights.

My issue is with those who show up to protests with signs reading, "LOVE IS NOT A CRIME" or "Marriage is a Right!" as though it were a question of the state preventing people from living with and loving one another. Perhaps I'm wrong and one day they'll fight for my right to marry my sister/brother/clone/horse/thirteen year old MtF transsexual/inanimate object of my choosing/any combination and number of the above. Then I'll marry all the Russian "brides" to skirt the firearm import restrictions. I will remain doubtful until that happens and I expect that I'll see quite a few homosexual couples who couldn't bear for siblings to be married because it's unnatural, leads to birth defects, and is a blight upon traditional marriage.

Everyone, please spare me the outraged "HOMOSEXUAL IS NOT PEDOFILE" replies. There's no reason to think the age of consent can't be lowered eventually or that marriage necessarily leads to a sexual relationship. Yea, it's a slippery slope and it'll probably never happen. Thank you for writing the post anyways.

I know Captcha. There will be Coughequences.

Xan Krieger:
They're the ones using it right now and they're not gonna give it up.

This is a very bizarre argument. Firstly, no one owns a word just because they use a word. Straight people don't own marriage.

Secondly, because words are not a finite resource. Homosexuals using the word "marriage" to describe their monogamous homosexual relationships that have been bound in ritual has precisely zero impact on heterosexual marriage.

It's an argument entirely without merit. It serves no purpose other than to conjure up a flimsy justification for bullying homosexuals. No self-respecting conservative should pay it the slightest attention.

Shadowstar38:

Pluvia:
These people can get married, but you can't.

You're not allowed to get baptized if you're not a Christian either. But it's legal for you to get dipped in water. But that's probably a non issue to you because it's a religious matter and not legislation. Replacing marriage with civil unions would be like that.

Not really? Because one is purely a Christian religious practice and the other is a legal institution that spans multiple countries, religions, beliefs and cultures. Not to mention that there are plenty of gay couples who do want the word, the same way that there were interracial couples sixty years ago who wanted to get married, and the same arguments used against Gay Marriage today were used back then.

Plus, currently Gay Marriage under the name Marriage is legal in several countries including Canada, New Zealand, France and the UK, and people dealt with that just fine. So what exactly is going to happen when you have people with Civil Unions in whatever country you're in, and they look over the border to another country which has Marriage for hetereo and homosexual relationships?

Pluvia:

Agitated Owl:
Let me take a crack at this and I'll try to avoid putting words in previous posters' mouths.

A key problem here is that many people arguing on behalf of gay marriage see no religious problem, or do not see marriage as a religious institution. On the other hand, people arguing against gay marriage see marriage as a religious institution limited, by religious doctrines, to a relationship between a man and a woman. The central problem is whether marriage is or is not a religious institution.

Xan's proposal would find a compromise by taking the religious element out of the equation. The government continues to offer people the legal benefits of marriage through civil unions, and couples may continue to get married through a church or other private venue if they so choose. Therefore, religious followers who do not believe that gay marriages are valid are free to continue believing so, while those who see no problem with gay marriages can perform them, all while everyone has equal access to the strictly legal benefits of marriage that are currently offered (through the more neutral term "civil unions").

All of this makes a certain kind of sense, especially when seen in light of the doctrine of separation between church and state. Then again, it is largely a semantic trick to make people happy. Then again . . . again . . . if it actually would result in a working compromise, it would be an idea worth consideration at least. I don't really have an answer here, I'm just trying to clarify a position.

The problem with this is you're assuming the church, or a religious institution, can marry you. It's the government that legally marries people, the wedding ceremony or any form of religions institution isn't necessary to becoming legally married. You say "couples may continue to get married through a church or other private venue if they so choose", but they can't, it's the government that marries people.

Even if you pretend you're married, even if someone else says you're married, if you're not legally married, you're not legally married. Civil unions create civil partnerships, not marriages, so it doesn't solve that problem.

It doesn't matter if religious followers do not believe that gay marriages are valid, it matters what the law is. You can pretend you're married, you can pretend others aren't married, the only thing that matters is the law.

I don't think anyone here is unclear on the law. I think we they are suggesting that we change the law! such that "civil unions" = legal marriage (as it exists today) and "marriage" becomes a status recognized by society or religious institutions, but with no specific legal effects. If the only thing that matters is the law, as you say, there should be no problem with this semantic compromise.

Edit: Apologies, didn't see that this was cleared up until after I posted.. Nevermind.

Shadowstar38:

Pluvia:
These people can get married, but you can't.

You're not allowed to get baptized if you're not a Christian either. But it's legal for you to get dipped in water. But that's probably a non issue to you because it's a religious matter and not legislation. Replacing marriage with civil unions would be like that.

Sure you can. I could start baptizing people in a hot tub filled with Pokemon cards if I wanted to. Christians may not recognise it as a real baptism, but no one asked them. The difference is that "baptism" carries no legal ramifications, so it would be a rather pointless argument, but I could certainly start baptising anyone I wanted to. Who's going to stop me?

Yuugasa:
I've heard many arguments against gay marriage in my time but they tend to be pretty nonsensical and shallow and once you dig into them a bit the actual source of the argument tends to be either 'because God hates gays.' Or 'Because I am personally disgusted by gays.' Has anyone ever heard an argument against allowing gay marriage that actually made sense and wasn't just petty or based on mysticism? If so what was it?

Well other than the old chestnut "Because my invisible friend says gay marriage is bad", no I can't think of a single rational argument.

Shaoken:

Plus, currently Gay Marriage under the name Marriage is legal in several countries including Canada, New Zealand, France and the UK, and people dealt with that just fine. So what exactly is going to happen when you have people with Civil Unions in whatever country you're in, and they look over the border to another country which has Marriage for hetereo and homosexual relationships?

Well what am I going to do then, because while you have "marriage", we only have "poroka"?

I'm just going to note it down to "It's a different language. But since both words are describing the same thing, well, guess they mean the same thing, so they are the same ting, because the meaning is the actually important part."

And yes, if you ever talked to a lawyer, you know that legalese is a separate language >.>

Aris Khandr:

Shadowstar38:

Pluvia:
These people can get married, but you can't.

You're not allowed to get baptized if you're not a Christian either. But it's legal for you to get dipped in water. But that's probably a non issue to you because it's a religious matter and not legislation. Replacing marriage with civil unions would be like that.

Sure you can. I could start baptizing people in a hot tub filled with Pokemon cards if I wanted to. Christians may not recognise it as a real baptism, but no one asked them. The difference is that "baptism" carries no legal ramifications, so it would be a rather pointless argument, but I could certainly start baptising anyone I wanted to. Who's going to stop me?

No one's going to bother trying. They'll just say it's not a "real" baptism. Without the government giving legal credence to the act, real is subjective.

Shadowstar38:
No one's going to bother trying. They'll just say it's not a "real" baptism. Without the government giving legal credence to the act, real is subjective.

That's rather the point. The government, which is a secular institution, is already giving out marriage licenses. We've got "not real marriages" happening every single day, if you take the religious point of view that any marriage not sanctioned by their god is "not real". Atheists, pagans, Buddhists, they're all getting married according to their own traditions (or lack thereof) with no Christian involvement at all. People are waking up in Las Vegas right now, hung over and realising that they were married by a guy in an Elvis costume last night. These are legal marriages, and no amount of arguing is going to change that. The idea that myself and my girlfriend is where the line is drawn is absolutely absurd from any sensible standpoint. Down the road from me, there is a wedding going on today that has both the bride and groom in elf ears, being presided over by Gandalf the Grey, and has a small child dressed as Frodo as "the ring bearer". If your god can get over that, he can certainly get over my far more normal wedding.

The argument that the religious hold exclusive rights to "marriage" has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. It doesn't matter if the religious agree or not. They can run around claiming "that's not a real marriage" until they're blue in the face. No one cares, and it is far too late in the process now to start looking for compromise. The writing is on the wall, they've lost. They can either surrender unconditionally, or they can keep fighting and keep losing. This is not a battle that they can win, so they may as well just get it over with.

Aris Khandr:

Shadowstar38:
No one's going to bother trying. They'll just say it's not a "real" baptism. Without the government giving legal credence to the act, real is subjective.

That's rather the point. The government, which is a secular institution, is already giving out marriage licenses. We've got "not real marriages" happening every single day, if you take the religious point of view that any marriage not sanctioned by their god is "not real". Atheists, pagans, Buddhists, they're all getting married according to their own traditions (or lack thereof) with no Christian involvement at all. People are waking up in Las Vegas right now, hung over and realising that they were married by a guy in an Elvis costume last night. These are legal marriages, and no amount of arguing is going to change that. The idea that myself and my girlfriend is where the line is drawn is absolutely absurd from any sensible standpoint. Down the road from me, there is a wedding going on today that has both the bride and groom in elf ears, being presided over by Gandalf the Grey, and has a small child dressed as Frodo as "the ring bearer". If your god can get over that, he can certainly get over my far more normal wedding.

The argument that the religious hold exclusive rights to "marriage" has more holes in it than Swiss cheese. It doesn't matter if the religious agree or not. They can run around claiming "that's not a real marriage" until they're blue in the face. No one cares, and it is far too late in the process now to start looking for compromise. The writing is on the wall, they've lost. They can either surrender unconditionally, or they can keep fighting and keep losing. This is not a battle that they can win, so they may as well just get it over with.

It kind of does matter if the religious agree, because they're the ones voting in people that oppose this stuff. Sway the opposition by giving them something while not really giving them anything, and the fight doesn't drag out.

Agitated Owl:

A key problem here is that many people arguing on behalf of gay marriage see no religious problem, or do not see marriage as a religious institution.

My problem is that marriage (the ceremony) clearly IS a religious institution and by denying gay christians the right to marry eachother or by denying pastors the right to marry who they want within their religious sect youre denying them the right to their religious interpretation of christianity. Their sect says their religious marriage is man man, woman woman or man woman. And another sect says it isnt and thus they cant do it because I say so. Thats religious oppression if ive ever seen it.

Why does the sect that thinks its wrong get to tell the sect that doesnt what they can and cannot do? Im sick and tired of people constantly seperating the religious and the homosexual. They overlap. If christians own marriage and there are gay christians those gay christians own marriage and should be able to define it however their religion says they can.

Shaoken:

Shadowstar38:
You're not allowed to get baptized if you're not a Christian either. But it's legal for you to get dipped in water. But that's probably a non issue to you because it's a religious matter and not legislation. Replacing marriage with civil unions would be like that.

Not really? Because one is purely a Christian religious practice and the other is a legal institution that spans multiple countries, religions, beliefs and cultures. Not to mention that there are plenty of gay couples who do want the word, the same way that there were interracial couples sixty years ago who wanted to get married, and the same arguments used against Gay Marriage today were used back then.

Plus, currently Gay Marriage under the name Marriage is legal in several countries including Canada, New Zealand, France and the UK, and people dealt with that just fine. So what exactly is going to happen when you have people with Civil Unions in whatever country you're in, and they look over the border to another country which has Marriage for hetereo and homosexual relationships?

I was going to respond to Shadowstar but plenty of people have already said what I was going to. Just a correction for you though Shaoken, Gay Marriage isn't available in the UK and wont be until about mid-2014. Civil Unions are and have been for a while now, but gay marriage itself wont be introduced until sometime next year.

I heard an ok one a few months ago, if you're cool with discrimination. They said, 'all races, genders, sexualitys are different and they should be treated as such'. They went on to explain that though we're all equal we should recognise the differences between them so with gay marrige there should be an equivalent but not the same. It was worded better but thats the gist.

Shadowstar38:
It kind of does matter if the religious agree, because they're the ones voting in people that oppose this stuff. Sway the opposition by giving them something while not really giving them anything, and the fight doesn't drag out.

Or wait for a state to challenge the Full Faith and Credit Clause on the subject of gay marriage, watch them lose horribly, and laugh. If this was an actual war, their army would be routing, a few gates to their capital would be rammed open, and we'd be marching into the city. This really isn't the time to start giving them anything, symbolic or not, they've lost. They can either accept that they've lost and help us open the rest of the gates, or they can try to keep fighting, and we'll open the gates despite their resistance.

There are two potential ways this ends. One is that a gay couple gets married in a state that allows it, then files as married in a state that doesn't, gets challenged, it goes to court, bounces around lower courts for a few years, then the Supreme Court rules. Since we already have the Full Faith and Credit Clause that says that states must recognise marriages performed in other states, you can figure out how that ruling will go. The other way it can go is that the gay couple files, gets challenged, and it kicks around lower courts for a few years, but the state eventually gives up and agrees they're married before it goes to the Supreme Court. The difference in the two scenarios? One finishes the fight for good, and the other has to be repeated for every single state in the country. But if the first state does go with the second plan, I can pretty much guarantee that gays will pick that fight in every single other state that is disallowing gay marriage within a month. The fight is over, the only real question is how long do the religious want to drag out their losing?

Aris Khandr:

Shadowstar38:
It kind of does matter if the religious agree, because they're the ones voting in people that oppose this stuff. Sway the opposition by giving them something while not really giving them anything, and the fight doesn't drag out.

Or wait for a state to challenge the Full Faith and Credit Clause on the subject of gay marriage, watch them lose horribly, and laugh. If this was an actual war, their army would be routing, a few gates to their capital would be rammed open, and we'd be marching into the city. This really isn't the time to start giving them anything, symbolic or not, they've lost. They can either accept that they've lost and help us open the rest of the gates, or they can try to keep fighting, and we'll open the gates despite their resistance.

There are two potential ways this ends. One is that a gay couple gets married in a state that allows it, then files as married in a state that doesn't, gets challenged, it goes to court, bounces around lower courts for a few years, then the Supreme Court rules. Since we already have the Full Faith and Credit Clause that says that states must recognise marriages performed in other states, you can figure out how that ruling will go. The other way it can go is that the gay couple files, gets challenged, and it kicks around lower courts for a few years, but the state eventually gives up and agrees they're married before it goes to the Supreme Court. The difference in the two scenarios? One finishes the fight for good, and the other has to be repeated for every single state in the country. But if the first state does go with the second plan, I can pretty much guarantee that gays will pick that fight in every single other state that is disallowing gay marriage within a month. The fight is over, the only real question is how long do the religious want to drag out their losing?

If my options are sit around for years until I fully "win", or just make someone think they "won", while getting what I need anyway, I'll pick the later. This all or nothing attitude I'm seeing towards this is tedious to me. It's not a competition.

YoungMan:
I heard an ok one a few months ago, if you're cool with discrimination. They said, 'all races, genders, sexualitys are different and they should be treated as such'. They went on to explain that though we're all equal we should recognise the differences between them so with gay marrige there should be an equivalent but not the same. It was worded better but thats the gist.

The failure in logic there is the difference has to be relevant to the different treatment(and I say failure because he fails to demonstrate that principle in application). Like men not needing a gynecologist. Generally when people say that shit they're talking about their own unjustified bigotry, differences they have determined are needed and can't show to be based off of any relevant difference.

For example, what recognized difference means we should have a different word? Why should the word be different? What will that accomplish?

All this talk of another word, it just hints at bigotry because there's no particular reason anyone should actually care if the definition of that word gets expanded. Words change all the time, but if people are being all picky about it on one issue, to the point of caring about it in law, that suggests another motive than just not wanting a word changed.

BiscuitTrouser:

Agitated Owl:

A key problem here is that many people arguing on behalf of gay marriage see no religious problem, or do not see marriage as a religious institution.

My problem is that marriage (the ceremony) clearly IS a religious institution and by denying gay christians the right to marry eachother or by denying pastors the right to marry who they want within their religious sect youre denying them the right to their religious interpretation of christianity. Their sect says their religious marriage is man man, woman woman or man woman. And another sect says it isnt and thus they cant do it because I say so. Thats religious oppression if ive ever seen it.

Why does the sect that thinks its wrong get to tell the sect that doesnt what they can and cannot do? Im sick and tired of people constantly seperating the religious and the homosexual. They overlap. If christians own marriage and there are gay christians those gay christians own marriage and should be able to define it however their religion says they can.

I'm not certain whether you're using what I said as a segue into your own separate argument, or suggesting that I don't understand that there are gay Christians. If it's the latter, I said that some people see no religious problem. There are Christian sects - and there are other faiths - that have no problem marrying gay couples. I can see a little room for misinterpretation in what I wrote, but I would hope context would help clear it up.

And speaking of context, it seems like you're ignoring everything else I said in that post and that was further explained in later posts. Even that quote there is only half of a paragraph that I wrote! The viewpoint that I was trying to help clarify is that, by separating the religious ceremony of marriage from the legal framework of marriage (in part by replacing "marriage" with "civil union" in any relevant law), we might find a compromise so that everyone had equal access to the legal rights associated now with marriage and people of religious faith could freely define marriage however they see fit within their own sects or religions.

Agitated Owl:

BiscuitTrouser:

Agitated Owl:

A key problem here is that many people arguing on behalf of gay marriage see no religious problem, or do not see marriage as a religious institution.

My problem is that marriage (the ceremony) clearly IS a religious institution and by denying gay christians the right to marry eachother or by denying pastors the right to marry who they want within their religious sect youre denying them the right to their religious interpretation of christianity. Their sect says their religious marriage is man man, woman woman or man woman. And another sect says it isnt and thus they cant do it because I say so. Thats religious oppression if ive ever seen it.

Why does the sect that thinks its wrong get to tell the sect that doesnt what they can and cannot do? Im sick and tired of people constantly seperating the religious and the homosexual. They overlap. If christians own marriage and there are gay christians those gay christians own marriage and should be able to define it however their religion says they can.

I'm not certain whether you're using what I said as a segue into your own separate argument, or suggesting that I don't understand that there are gay Christians. If it's the latter, I said that some people see no religious problem. There are Christian sects - and there are other faiths - that have no problem marrying gay couples. I can see a little room for misinterpretation in what I wrote, but I would hope context would help clear it up.

And speaking of context, it seems like you're ignoring everything else I said in that post and that was further explained in later posts. Even that quote there is only half of a paragraph that I wrote! The viewpoint that I was trying to help clarify is that, by separating the religious ceremony of marriage from the legal framework of marriage (in part by replacing "marriage" with "civil union" in any relevant law), we might find a compromise so that everyone had equal access to the legal rights associated now with marriage and people of religious faith could freely define marriage however they see fit within their own sects or religions.

They are perfectly free to define it within their own sects already. What they are demanding is that the government can't use their word, which is just silly. They don't own words.

Shadowstar38:

Aris Khandr:

Shadowstar38:
It kind of does matter if the religious agree, because they're the ones voting in people that oppose this stuff. Sway the opposition by giving them something while not really giving them anything, and the fight doesn't drag out.

Or wait for a state to challenge the Full Faith and Credit Clause on the subject of gay marriage, watch them lose horribly, and laugh. If this was an actual war, their army would be routing, a few gates to their capital would be rammed open, and we'd be marching into the city. This really isn't the time to start giving them anything, symbolic or not, they've lost. They can either accept that they've lost and help us open the rest of the gates, or they can try to keep fighting, and we'll open the gates despite their resistance.

There are two potential ways this ends. One is that a gay couple gets married in a state that allows it, then files as married in a state that doesn't, gets challenged, it goes to court, bounces around lower courts for a few years, then the Supreme Court rules. Since we already have the Full Faith and Credit Clause that says that states must recognise marriages performed in other states, you can figure out how that ruling will go. The other way it can go is that the gay couple files, gets challenged, and it kicks around lower courts for a few years, but the state eventually gives up and agrees they're married before it goes to the Supreme Court. The difference in the two scenarios? One finishes the fight for good, and the other has to be repeated for every single state in the country. But if the first state does go with the second plan, I can pretty much guarantee that gays will pick that fight in every single other state that is disallowing gay marriage within a month. The fight is over, the only real question is how long do the religious want to drag out their losing?

If my options are sit around for years until I fully "win", or just make someone think they "won", while getting what I need anyway, I'll pick the later. This all or nothing attitude I'm seeing towards this is tedious to me. It's not a competition.

Well I have one argument that will change your mind on this (which I got from a Canadian friend who is quite invested in keeping up with anything that could ruin her from marrying her girlfriend); by having a different legal name for it, you're giving those bigots the means to fuck you over more. If Gay Marriage is passed, then Marriage becomes one big definition that includes both hetereo and homosexual unions and gives all the rights to both. With "Civil Unions" suppose you get those who think they "won" in a majority and all of a sudden they decide "You know what? Those gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids. Let's fix that." So they go a change the laws so that only married couples can adopt kids. Or they decide that Gays aren't procreating, so they should get less tax breaks. Civil Unions are a separate legal term from Marriage, so homophobes can fuck around with Civil Unions to their hearts content. Once Marriage has been amended you can't do something to fuck with gay couples without doing the same to straight ones, and rolling back the definition of Marriage is a legal nightmare.

"Separate But Equal" doesn't work, the entire Civil Rights movement proved that. If two things are separate, they can't be equal. If something is worth doing, it's worth doing right the first time.

Shaoken:

Well I have one argument that will change your mind on this (which I got from a Canadian friend who is quite invested in keeping up with anything that could ruin her from marrying her girlfriend); by having a different legal name for it, you're giving those bigots the means to fuck you over more. With "Civil Unions" suppose you get those who think they "won" in a majority and all of a sudden they decide "You know what? Those gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids. Let's fix that." So they go a change the laws so that only married couples can adopt kids. Or they decide that Gays aren't procreating, so they should get less tax breaks. Civil Unions are a separate legal term from Marriage, so homophobes can fuck around with Civil Unions to their hearts content. Once Marriage has been amended you can't do something to fuck with gay couples without doing the same to straight ones, and rolling back the definition of Marriage is a legal nightmare.

That's not what was proposed, though. The proposal was to legally refer to all marriages, homosexual and heterosexual ones, with the exact same term, just that the term happens to be a different string of letters. That "marriage" would cease to be a legal term, completely replaced with "civil union", while granting the same rights and benefits that currently stand under "marriage". There would be no "marriage" vs. "civil union" dichotomy, because only "civil union" would legally exist.

Basically, it would amend "marriage" so that you can't do something to fuck with gay couples without doing the same to straight ones, while simply calling it a different name. But, equal for everyone, and with no "separate" component. Not "separate but equal", but just "equal".

Shadowstar38:

Aris Khandr:
The fight is over, the only real question is how long do the religious want to drag out their losing?

If my options are sit around for years until I fully "win", or just make someone think they "won", while getting what I need anyway, I'll pick the later. This all or nothing attitude I'm seeing towards this is tedious to me. It's not a competition.

When a thug tries to steal my wallet, I don't compromise with them and settle for only giving them half of my money.

When a bully tries to kick me to the ground, I don't compromise with them and settle for just being slapped on the head.

When a bigot tries to deny me my rights, I don't settle for giving up half of my rights.

The "all or nothing" attitude here is essential, because opponents of gay marriage are 100% in the wrong. They don't have any legal right to deny homosexuals the right to marry. So there should not, must not be any compromise with them.

Vegosiux:

Shaoken:

Well I have one argument that will change your mind on this (which I got from a Canadian friend who is quite invested in keeping up with anything that could ruin her from marrying her girlfriend); by having a different legal name for it, you're giving those bigots the means to fuck you over more. With "Civil Unions" suppose you get those who think they "won" in a majority and all of a sudden they decide "You know what? Those gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids. Let's fix that." So they go a change the laws so that only married couples can adopt kids. Or they decide that Gays aren't procreating, so they should get less tax breaks. Civil Unions are a separate legal term from Marriage, so homophobes can fuck around with Civil Unions to their hearts content. Once Marriage has been amended you can't do something to fuck with gay couples without doing the same to straight ones, and rolling back the definition of Marriage is a legal nightmare.

That's not what was proposed, though. The proposal was to legally refer to all marriages, homosexual and heterosexual ones, with the exact same term, just that the term happens to be a different string of letters. That "marriage" would cease to be a legal term, completely replaced with "civil union", while granting the same rights and benefits that currently stand under "marriage". There would be no "marriage" vs. "civil union" dichotomy, because only "civil union" would legally exist.

Basically, it would amend "marriage" so that you can't do something to fuck with gay couples without doing the same to straight ones, while simply calling it a different name. But, equal for everyone, and with no "separate" component. Not "separate but equal", but just "equal".

Here's the thing though, how exactly do you expect the people who are currently married to take being told that their current, honored status as married has been symbolically downgraded to that thing they were forcing on them evil gays? Do you think they'll accept that easily enough to justify telling homosexuals to just give up on being married like they wanted because we need to compromise with the bigots?

And what about international issues? I'm not fully aware of the status of Civil "we compromised with bigotry" Unions amongst the countries of the world and whether they would be given the same rights as married couples there, so you could potentially be creating a complication of laws involving every other country besides our own.

Vegosiux:

Shaoken:

Well I have one argument that will change your mind on this (which I got from a Canadian friend who is quite invested in keeping up with anything that could ruin her from marrying her girlfriend); by having a different legal name for it, you're giving those bigots the means to fuck you over more. With "Civil Unions" suppose you get those who think they "won" in a majority and all of a sudden they decide "You know what? Those gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt kids. Let's fix that." So they go a change the laws so that only married couples can adopt kids. Or they decide that Gays aren't procreating, so they should get less tax breaks. Civil Unions are a separate legal term from Marriage, so homophobes can fuck around with Civil Unions to their hearts content. Once Marriage has been amended you can't do something to fuck with gay couples without doing the same to straight ones, and rolling back the definition of Marriage is a legal nightmare.

That's not what was proposed, though. The proposal was to legally refer to all marriages, homosexual and heterosexual ones, with the exact same term, just that the term happens to be a different string of letters. That "marriage" would cease to be a legal term, completely replaced with "civil union", while granting the same rights and benefits that currently stand under "marriage". There would be no "marriage" vs. "civil union" dichotomy, because only "civil union" would legally exist.

Basically, it would amend "marriage" so that you can't do something to fuck with gay couples without doing the same to straight ones, while simply calling it a different name. But, equal for everyone, and with no "separate" component. Not "separate but equal", but just "equal".

Except that really isn't what was proposed; the poster was letting the other side think they "won." Considering their goal is to keep Marriage strictly heterosexual, how exactly are they going to think they've won when they lose marriage? The whole point of the exercise was to avoid a long fight, yet offering a solution that pisses both sides off and pleases no one is not going to be that solution.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked