It harms society apparently because it breeds hate amongst the people who are for and against it. Therefore saying it doesn't harm anyone is a fallacy.OhJohnNo said:
Poll: Do you support gay marriage?
- Thread starter Jaeke
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Making people angry isn't considered harm in this society, if it was then there would be laws against sequels, pop music and the DMV.The_Critic said:
There doesn't seem to be much of an argument for the opposition:
Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman and would be devalued if same-sex marriages were allowed. If same-sex marriage was allowed, the whole meaning and tradition of marriage would be broken. Who could deny a person from marrying their pet? Or their house? Marriage would mean very little, just a term given to the bonding between two things. In the news recently, an American woman married herself. What is marriage?
I'm not entirely sure about this but doesn't a civil partnership grant a couple the same rights as a married couple? If so, then why can't gay people leave marriage alone? Just let it be between a man and a woman. It seems that they want something simply because they can't have it. It has been mentioned by people in this thread that marriage is just a word, so why deny them something so insignificant? Well that works both ways, why fight so hard for just a word?
I don't believe that gay marriage is wrong but I believe that allowing gay marriage is not something that should be taken lightly. There are millions of people who would be upset by this and it would have a large impact on society. I think if gay marriage was legalized, it would be the final nail in the coffin of the opinion "homosexuality is unacceptable".
Marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman and would be devalued if same-sex marriages were allowed. If same-sex marriage was allowed, the whole meaning and tradition of marriage would be broken. Who could deny a person from marrying their pet? Or their house? Marriage would mean very little, just a term given to the bonding between two things. In the news recently, an American woman married herself. What is marriage?
I'm not entirely sure about this but doesn't a civil partnership grant a couple the same rights as a married couple? If so, then why can't gay people leave marriage alone? Just let it be between a man and a woman. It seems that they want something simply because they can't have it. It has been mentioned by people in this thread that marriage is just a word, so why deny them something so insignificant? Well that works both ways, why fight so hard for just a word?
I don't believe that gay marriage is wrong but I believe that allowing gay marriage is not something that should be taken lightly. There are millions of people who would be upset by this and it would have a large impact on society. I think if gay marriage was legalized, it would be the final nail in the coffin of the opinion "homosexuality is unacceptable".
Of course they should be allowed to marry!
There are absolutely no logical reasons why they shouldn't. The only people realistically affected by this are the couple and their families. Unless that's you, what on earth do you have to complain about? It's not going to hurt anyone unless you're bigoted enough to let it. Life is miserable enough as it is. Let them have some joy.
I believe this. My friends believe this. My parents believe this.
And funny enough: My grandmother, who is the staunchest Catholic I know, believes this.
There are absolutely no logical reasons why they shouldn't. The only people realistically affected by this are the couple and their families. Unless that's you, what on earth do you have to complain about? It's not going to hurt anyone unless you're bigoted enough to let it. Life is miserable enough as it is. Let them have some joy.
I believe this. My friends believe this. My parents believe this.
And funny enough: My grandmother, who is the staunchest Catholic I know, believes this.
Rayne for Jesus, 2012
That is my opinion on the matter. If people want to marry whomever/whatever they want, let them (Despite how strange this may be society); it's their life, let them live it and keep your stick out of your arse so you can live your own.
Ah. But then why must they go agaisnt their beliefs in their private medical centers and preform abortions and or birth control which they don't support? Why shouldn't they hold after their right to not preform practacies they don't agree with if/when the healthcare bill passes the senete? (note. not a pro-life preacher just pointing something out)Asita said:
I do not want anything in the Christian sense. I want to beable to see my husband in the hospital in the circumstance they only allow next of kin, the reight to adopt and a slew of other thing I can not have.tzimize said:
(Note: This is not directed at the person i am replying to nor is any negativity fond in this post) Even if I was to marry a woman I would not have the former right and she likely gets part custody in the latter. This is just some info on to why having a legal marriage is so important to people, it is not a seance of entitlement to the word or looking for government handouts.
You'd probably have to ask a law student to get a satisfactory answer, but my understanding is that unless failure to do so results in harm to the patient (thereby violating the hippocratic oath) a given doctor is typically not required to perform a procedure they do not agree with, though they are obliged to inform the patient about where they could get the procedure. I could be wrong though.Jeremy Meadows said:
The problem with that is twofold: First, as explained priorly the act in question fails to set the precident you are claiming it does (hence the statement about the logic being lacking. The premise is faulty, and through that the conclusion is questionable). Second, again, 'snowball effect' doesn't provide an argument against the topic itself and relies on the slippery slope fallacy to function (again, rendering the argument logically unsound)The_Critic said:
...I don't think you understand what that word means.The_Critic said:
Fallacy: improper argumentation in reasoning often resulting in a misconception or presumption, either through the failure of premises to support their proposed conclusion or a critical flaw in the logical structure.
Alternatively: Fallacies are common errors in reasoning that will undermine the logic of your argument. Fallacies can be either illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points, and are often identified because they lack evidence that supports their claim.
I strongly support gay marriage and in more general terms, equal rights for all people, and I say that as a practicing Christian. I will never understand how "This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you" becomes "Kill the queers" or how we can all be made in the image of God, but some of us are more God-like than others.
Loving v. Virginia would like to have a word with you. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia]Xanthious said:
If you're too lazy, then I'll make it easier.
Replace anything related to race with sexual orientation and voila! Such a simple conclusion, no?Loving v. Virginia said:
So yes, marriage is a right, as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court, and therefore falls under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
In this case, I support Gay marriage, for the most part at least.Frozen Fox said:
Equal rights? Of course!
But personally I draw a blurry line at adoption. Adoption is a right that has an effect on people other than yourself. As long as we/I dont know how two same-gendered parents affect a child, I am hesitantly skeptical to gay adoption.
Do I think gays cannot love children as a hetero does? Of course not. But there are factors that the parents cannot control, but that still affect the children. Adoption should be 100% for the benefit of the child, not the benefit of some person who believes he is entitled to be a parent.
I do not know how having same gendered parents affect the psyche and upbringing of a child, and as long as I dont know, I am hesitantly skeptical to gay adoption.
This is a bit too silly to answer really, but I'll bite. Comparing marriage to racial segregation is a bit nutty. Especially because of the reasons of my previous post. It is not a human right to be married in a church. And its utterly retarded to believe that it is. If gays/lesbians want the same legal rights, I am all for it (more or less, see rest of post). If gays/lesbians want to force Christians to accept them because they have the right to be accepted? Fuck them.thebobmaster said:
Being accepted by society is a right. Forcing a religion to change their beliefs is not.
Yep a very simple conclusion. I'm surprised you got it so horribly wrong. This is talking about equal protection under the law. Something that gay people currently enjoy and something that blacks did not enjoy at the time of that ruling. At the time of that ruling a black man was unable to marry women of a different race. As laws are not allowed to discriminate based upon race the laws banning interracial marriage were deemed to be unconstitutional. Today a gay man is free to marry any woman of any race he he so chooses. Hell in some states he's even allowed to marry any man of any race he chooses too.Dr. Thrax said:
Gay marriage is NOT a 14th Amendment issue as gay people currently enjoy equal protection under the law. The laws (in most states) says that marriage is between a man and a woman. Not a man and a man, a man and a ham sandwich, or a man and a his pet goldfish. People are never going to able to marry without restriction. If you want to push the limits to universally allow same sex marriage then where do you draw the line from there? What do you say to the guy who wants to marry his pet gerbil? Marriage is one of his protected civil rights too after all and according to your argument people should be able to marry however the hell they want.
What gay marriage is is a states' rights issue. As such it's up to the individual states to decide the restrictions placed upon marriage and unfortunately for the gay marriage crowd it gets voted down by a considerable margin every single time it goes up for a vote in a given state. However, even though gay marriage has yet to win a single solitary vote, it is still available in multiple states. If proponents of gay marriage want it available in more states there are avenues available for them to pursue. However, to do so as a 14th Amendment issue is a losing strategy.
Technically speaking, yes you're right, homosexuals have the same rights as all others. However the right they lack is the ability to marry the consenting adult they love (See how I said consenting adult?), that heterosexuals currently enjoy, who just so happens to be of the same gender, so there's some gender discrimination going on there as well, which is prohibited as well as racial discrimination by our Constitution.Xanthious said:
And most (If not all) states will not recognize a same-sex marriages conducted out of state. In certain states, same-sex marriage as well as same-sex civil unions are outright banned. While there are certain things that are obtainable outside of a marriage, in terms of marriage benefits, most people wish to take the "next step" in a relationship, as it means more than just tax breaks to them, heaven forbid someone actually love another consenting adult.
And here is where I stop taking you seriously.
You're twisting my words into something I never meant. I never said, nor insinuated that "people should be able to marry however (Or possibly 'whoever', unsure if typo or not.) they want", I simply said that this issue shares significant similarities between the issues that were brought up when interracial marriage was being fought over. Replacing the racial terms with sexual orientation terms in the decision in Loving v. Virginia, and you get the same exact legal standing. You can not legally infringe upon a person's rights based on factors in their lives that are not under their control (Such as race, sexual orientation, gender and the like.)
And I'm not even going to touch that "pushing the limits of marriage" bullshit you're spouting. You know damn well what the difference is between two consenting adults and an adult and a pet/inanimate object/child. Laws can be changed, definitions can be changed.
Stopped taking you seriously here, too.
Civil rights should never be put up to a majority's vote. I'm sure you've heard this numerous times, but if civil rights were up to the states then we'd still have slavery in the South, or it'd have taken a lot longer to abolish it.
These rights are supposed to be inalienable to all U.S. Citizens, and I've already stated that as per Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a right, and stated above that technically, yes, we do share the same rights as heterosexuals, but still there is unequal treatment based on the gender discrimination, based on the simple fact that the spouses are of the same gender.
You misunderstand. I don't expect people to change their religious beliefs. But marriage, contrary to popular opinion, is not a religious ceremony. It can be, but it doesn't have to be. Otherwise, eloping would be out of the question, as would shotgun marriages.tzimize said:
I respect religion up to the point when it starts interfering with the well-being of others. And two consenting adults not being allowed to marry, simply because they share the same parts, is interference to me. You want to have a Catholic wedding? Great! But why can't homosexuals be allowed to go to the courthouse and be married legally?
Edit: And are you saying that it is wrong for gays to want to be accepted by those who are prejudiced against them?
Well, actually, as someone pointed out: Loving V Virginia.Xanthious said:
Also, I would say that the right to marry who they choose, both being of sound mind, age of majority, yada yada. It IS denied to them. They are not allowed, in many states, and countries, government sanctioned marriages. They are not automatically treated in the same way as people with regular marriages, and in fact, must go through extra effort to get said consideration.
Fuck reproduction. I'm calling rubbish right there. We've enough people in the world for one. Two, it's social engineering and manipulation. Three: Infertile couples, post-menopausal couples, and couples who dislike children are allowed those things. This is NOT an argument. Also: Gay people can reproduce. Heard of IVF? Sure, for gay men, a woman will have to be hired at some point, but that completely invalidates reproduction as an argument. Reproduction is simply the knee jerk response to being called out for lacking a basis for the current definition of marriage, by listing the one thing that people are confident gays can't do. And those tax credits could really help them to adopt children. Which, I can't exactly see as a downside, no?
Finally: To call their union anything other than a marriage implies it is not a marriage. This is inherently unequal. Any arguments beyond there are to me, almost certainly going to be invalid.
If you can't treat people the way you are treated and would like to be treated, and treating them with the respect deserving of all of our shared status as human beings, then you aren't acting morally, and that to me, is the end of it.
Actually, my point is that using Einstein doesn't make your position logical. And it still doesn't demonstrate the validity of the one male one female model.Vetinarii said:
Actually, single parents, at least female ones, can produce a child. Fact. One night stands, IVF etc. Of course, this applies exclusively to women.
And yes, I entirely agree: Marriage is pointless, and my point overall is that none of your positions refute GAY marriage, but marriage itself. If you wish to argue that marriage is pointless: I have zero objection. But then make sure you mention that to those viewing, rather than labelling it as an argument against a specific population getting married, which in my mind, is dangerously close to disingenuous.
1) Offspring are not necessarily helping society.Vetinarii said:
2) Then all non-childbearing marriages should be banned, and not just gay marriages.
3) I'm not sure why we're defining marriage as being about children and child raising: To me, it seems simply likely that it's due to the difficulty gays have reproducing naturally. Which would be a terrible thing to use against them, would it not? Besides: Marriage doesn't require intent to create children. Again, I think marriage does hinder society: But if the right is extended to one group, it should be extended to all. If you're in favour of abolishing marriage, I personally have no issue with it. But to label it as an argument against gay marriage is, again, a dangerously disingenuous assertion.
Well, since I don't think I made any assertions in my piece, you can let me know if I did, I'm sure everything I said was correct.Vetinarii said:
Really, I only disagree with you on one point: That marriage, (And by extension, since we're talking about potential abolishment of marriage) and romantic relationships are about creating children. I can understand completely that this may be motive for some. But this isn't the way the law is defined, and it misrepresents what marriage is.
Also: Don't label arguments which counter marriage in general as opposing gay marriage specifically. It's not quite true, and it does make some people (Definitely me, I'm a jerk), quite hostile.
Who cares? So some dude/chick wants to marry some other dude/chick. Let's pretend I don't like the gays. Why would this marriage affect me at all? I'm obviously not friends with them; they're gay! And it's not like marriages are reverse highlanders, where the more marriages exist in the world the less powerful mine becomes.
I don't like how close the moon is to the Earth. I fear it will someday rape Australia. Isn't my ignorance insane?
I don't like how close the moon is to the Earth. I fear it will someday rape Australia. Isn't my ignorance insane?