Homosexual Marriage

[fushigi]

Quote by: Dirty Name Now you're getting it. Tell me - without the consequences of a sexual relationship, what point would there be for society to recognize marriages in the first place?

Ahh, in the first place. Good point. Marriage was probably designed to be a heterosexual institution in the first place, but sometimes things developed for one purpose serve another down the road. Take plastics and velcro, for example, which were developed for the space program but now serve many useful functions outside NASA.

Quote by: Dirty Name In other words, why not grant marriage benefits to, say, my grandmother and her spinster daughter, who will never marry and will live with Grandma until death? Likewise, why not grant marriage benefits to a couple of straight apartment mates in New York City? College roommates? Brothers who live together? Should we grant marriage benefits to a male and female who have never met and live on opposite coasts?

Well let's just take one thing at a time, Dirty. Right now I don't see millions of people outside clamoring for your grandmother's right to marry your aunt.

[Dirty Name]

Ahh, in the first place. Good point. Marriage was probably designed to be a heterosexual institution in the first place, but sometimes things developed for one purpose serve another down the road. Take plastics and velcro, for example, which were developed for the space program but now serve many useful functions outside NASA.

NASA? Velcro? Plastics? Forgive me if I don't see how this relates to my question.

Well let's just take one thing at a time, Dirty. Right now I don't see millions of people outside clamoring for your grandmother's right to marry your aunt.

Fifty years ago we didn't see gay people clamoring for marriage benefits either. What is your point?

[Dirty Name]

As I recall, you ran away from our one-on-one debate on this topic.

Ah, no. It's just that it took two weeks to get you to state your position. I'll be happy to rejoin the one-on-one debate as time permits, but last year was pretty busy for me, election year and all.

[Dirty Name]

Fundamentally, your belief in this regard is dependent on people wanting government to recognize marriage for the same reasons that you want government to recognize marriage.

Um...no it isn't. My belief is steadfast regardless of what others believe and is not dependent on others in any way.

If people don't think like you, your argument breaks down.

Again, no. The opinions of others has nothing to do with the facts, ideas and concepts of my argument. It is your side that puts so much value on what others think. I personally am not swayed by groupthink.

Also, your claims of harm to traditional marriage are speculative.

Congratulations on getting something right. But wait... doesn't your statement hold true for any claim made of what might happen in the future? The key is to present a basis for one's conclusions, and I've done that. You don't have to accept it if you don't want to, but you probably should provide your own basis for rejecting the opposition view.

[Dirty Name]

Make a prediction - how long until we see the breakdown of traditional marriages in countries that allow gay marriage?

Define "breakdown," then explain why you think I have to do that to support my argument.

Again, the onus is on YOU people to demonstrate why gay marriages should be treated as though it is of equal relevance to society. Then, of course, you'll need to explain whether or not the other types of non-traditional relationships should also be treated equally, or why you would discriminate against them.

This should be fun.

[Dirty Name]

More nonsense and drivel. Why do you bother? "The gender composition of their union" which "fails to meet a specific legal standard" is that they are homosexual. Therefore, they are denied marriage benefits because they are homosexual. Suggesting that they could marry so long as they pretend to be straight and marry someone of the opposite sex is an idiotic assertion, to be overly polite.

Your attempt at verbal communication is difficult to follow here, so let me ask you two simple questions and see if you can handle them without resorting to your typical arsenal of phrases like "bigot" and "homophobe." Ready? Here goes:

Under the current law, can the state conclude with 100% certainty that all opposite-sex couples are heterosexuals?

Conversely, under current law, can the state conclude with 100% certainty that all same-sex couples are homosexual?

Don't even bother with your rage-filled rants until you've answered these two questions to the best of your ability.

[Dirty Name]

Are you now associating pedophiles and polygamists with homosexuals? And you left out practitioners of bestiality and necrophilia. You are getting sloppy with your slurs. If you are going to raise stupid non-sequitors, at least try to be complete.

Ah, yes. Another non-answer from RickSP sandwiched between allegations of bigotry.

This is what passes for logic on the liberal side.

[Dirty Name]

Would your position be that, the state has receives some "benefit" from unions between heterosexuals? One so great that they are "compelled" to regulate marriage?

Yes, the state receives some benefit from heterosexual unions, and it receives zero benefit from homosexual unions. But I don't quite agree with the wording when you say the state is "compelled" to regulate marriage for that reason. I would argue that EVEN IF the state recognized same-sex unions, the state still has a need to regulate marriage.

I think you are confusing the state's compelling need to regulate marriage with the state's compelling interest in encouraging positive parenting and family planning outcomes.

Do you think it would be possible to quantify (with dollar signs), the impact that allowing gays to marry would have?

I would hesitate to try, though I'm sure activists on both sides have numbers they're willing to banter about.

After a thorough reading of "burdens and benefits", it appears certain that it's not a moral or spiritual issue, it's a fiscal issue. Would you agree?

Yes, partially. But it's bigger than that. It's a social issue, too. It could also be a national security issue, if taken to the extreme. Consider Israel - if more and more non-Jewish citizens are born in Israel, it may soon cease to exist as a Jewish state.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: Dirty Name No one is denied marriage benefits "because they are homosexual." They are denied marriage benefits because the gender composition of their union fails to meet a specific legal standard. Gays are allowed to marry, provided they choose a partner who is of the opposite gender. Like it or not, that's a fact. Sexual preference is NOT a consideration when the state grants benefits. It never even comes up. Hardly. If homosexuals are a minority, do pedophiles not logically qualify? What about polygamists? Etc. When does it ever end? Do tell.

Again you compare homosexuals to pedophiles (who almost always turn out to be hetrosexual white males) and polygamists (of which there are very few and even the Mormons have given up on it)


It ends when people like you decide to stop telling others how they can and can't live thir lives. Why don't YOU tell us what HARM would come from same sex marraige?

We claim that gays have "promiscuous sex" but if they try to be in a permanent LEGAL relationship, we don't alow it.

We complain about all the uninsured people who's medical bills must be picked up by the state, yet when they try to "get married" so the insurance companies will allow them to cover each other, we refuse to allow that as well.

The ONLY thing you have going for you is a couple lines in the old testament,(Leviticus) and yet you wouldn't want to sell your daughters as slaves, or have people killed for planting two different crops together or wearing two different kinds of cloth.
Leviticus has those "laws" as well, and we blow them off like we do any inconvenient pat of the Bible.



All this is, is state sanctioned bigotry. All your blathering about how "sexual preference is not an issue" is nonsense, because if it truly were NOT an issue, same sex couples could marry at will. Not so today.

We are essentially punishing these people for WHO THEY ARE, and THAT sir, is BIGOTRY.


Now come on back and tell us all why it isn't. And convince us you arent motivated by an ancient outdated law, in some book of dubious authorship.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: Dirty Name Ah, yes. Another non-answer from RickSP sandwiched between allegations of bigotry. This is what passes for logic on the liberal side.

And YOUR logic is just disguised bigotry, such are the policies of the conservative side.

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: Dirty Name Your attempt at verbal communication is difficult to follow here, so let me ask you two simple questions and see if you can handle them without resorting to your typical arsenal of phrases like "bigot" and "homophobe." Ready? Here goes: Under the current law, can the state conclude with 100% certainty that all opposite-sex couples are heterosexuals? Conversely, under current law, can the state conclude with 100% certainty that all same-sex couples are homosexual? Don't even bother with your rage-filled rants until you've answered these two questions to the best of your ability.

You might want to explain why any of that is relevent, but I doubt that you can. Typical conservative smoke screen to cover the bigotry and hate for anyone who is different.

[Mozart1220]

OH, and Dirtyname...what are the "benefits" of hetrosexual unions that a homosexual union couldn't provide, leaving out the procreation angle, since many hetro couples WILL NEVER PRODUCE CHILDREN, AND MANY OF THOSE WHO DO CAN'T OR WON'T TAKE CARE OF THEM?

[Mozart1220]

Quote by: Dirty Name NASA? Velcro? Plastics? Forgive me if I don't see how this relates to my question. Fifty years ago we didn't see gay people clamoring for marriage benefits either. What is your point?

50 years ago we didn't see mixed race couples either. We grow as a society man, try to keep up, this isn't 1537, it's 2007.

[fushigi]

Quote by: Dirty Name NASA? Velcro? Plastics? Forgive me if I don't see how this relates to my question.

You avoided that one nicely. My point is that sometimes institutions are developed for one thing and then applied to something else. I'll use examples relating to rights so you can follow my argument (guess you get a bit confused replying to so many posts). For example, in the US voting rights were originally designed for white men. Later, those same rights were given to others. Understand?

I'll explain it in another way to simplify it for you. Your argument is that marriage was designed for heterosexual couples, and therefore cannot be an institution for any other type of relationship to enjoy. In debate, we call this a fallacy; specifically, the Appeal to Tradition argument. No matter how you slice it, it doesn't stand up to logic.

Quote by: Dirty Fifty years ago we didn't see gay people clamoring for marriage benefits either. What is your point?

My point is that your slippery slope argument about your grandmother wanting to marry your aunt is irrelevant. If there's a mass movement later on down the road to let your grandmother and aunt marry, we'll have that debate too. For now we're discussing gay marriage; please try to focus on the debate at hand.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: DirtyName You don't have to accept it if you don't want to, but you probably should provide your own basis for rejecting the opposition view.

Freedom is better than restriction. We should allow something unless there is demonstrable harm - sufficient harm to justify making it illegal. Since there is no demonstrable harm to gay marriage, we should allow it.

Your speculations do not count as demonstrable harm.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: dirtyname Yes, the state receives some benefit from heterosexual unions, and it receives zero benefit from homosexual unions.

People are not here to serve the state. The state is here to serve people.

There is actually one area where we agree. The legal recognition of gay marriage should not come about because of the pressure of a vocal minority. We should not force acceptance.

Now, where we disagree...

Legal recognition of gay marriage should come about when the majority wants it. I am not saying that the majority is always right. I am saying that gay marriage proponents will (and have) shoot themselves in the foot if they do not focus on changing the hearts and minds of the public, before they seek to change the laws.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Dirty Name Ah, no. It's just that it took two weeks to get you to state your position. I'll be happy to rejoin the one-on-one debate as time permits, but last year was pretty busy for me, election year and all.

Revisionist history.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Dirty Name Your attempt at verbal communication is difficult to follow here, so let me ask you two simple questions and see if you can handle them without resorting to your typical arsenal of phrases like "bigot" and "homophobe." Ready? Here goes: Under the current law, can the state conclude with 100% certainty that all opposite-sex couples are heterosexuals? Conversely, under current law, can the state conclude with 100% certainty that all same-sex couples are homosexual? Don't even bother with your rage-filled rants until you've answered these two questions to the best of your ability.

Continued non-debate. Drivel and nonsense. The answer to both questions is no. And both questions are idiotic and beside the point. Pretty typical of your posts, come to think of it.

[RULE 1]

In My Opinion, I See Nothing Wrong With Homosexual Marriage. I Think That Whatever A Person Decides To Do With Themselves Is Their Business As Long As They Are Not Harming Others. I Feel That Focusing On An Issue Such As This Takes Away From Focusing On The Real Crime And Or Things That Are More Important. We Know That It Is Morally Wrong, Yes It's A Sin But Who Are We To Judge What Others Do In The Privacy Of Their Own Home. They Are The Ones Who Will Have To Answer To The Man Upstairs When The Time Comes Not I. I See Them No Differently And I Do Feel That They Have Rights Just As Well As Everyone Else.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Rule 1 We Know That It Is Morally Wrong

I believe love is a beautiful thing, including homosexual love. I see no reason to consider it morally wrong.