Homosexual Marriage

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: fushigi As Fangrim mentioned earlier, gays are not denied any rights or privileges taken for granted by others--they're perfectly free to marry anyone so long as that person is of the opposite gender. I don't think any law or constitutional amendment really guarantees gays the right to marry. Marriage laws would need to be changed in order to encompass same-sex marriage, and many oppose changing laws or adding amendments just to give them this right. As Dirty Name has often argued (just look at his signature) there are many secular arguments against gay marriage. And this is coming from a guy who SUPPORTS gay marriage.

The problem I have with this is that whatever the laws may state, whatever rights may be equally shared across heterosexual/homosexual lines, the outcomes are different: for a heterosexual, the right to marry someone of the opposite gender is right and proper, and a benefit to a happy and healthy life; this is not true of homosexuals. I know that nobody is guaranteed a certain outcome, only certain opportunities, but I think we should strive to provide the best possible outcome for the maximum number of citizens. I think accepting and recognizing gay marriage would make people happy, and it would not harm anyone -- therefore I think it a good idea.

This is why I want to hear arguments, and see proof, that show why marriage should be limited to one man and one woman. Because if there are not good arguments and/or there is not good proof, then whatever the laws have said in the past, I think they should be changed. I think it would be good for our society, to show that we care for the happiness and well-being of all of our citizens, and that we are willing to change our ways when the old ways are shown to be less than the best ways.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Mozart1220 Assuming that being gay IS a choice, which it isn't.

Never said it was. I was saying that people who oppose gay marriage believe it is, and thus are against it. That isn't me.

[fushigi]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint The problem I have with this is that whatever the laws may state, whatever rights may be equally shared across heterosexual/homosexual lines, the outcomes are different: for a heterosexual, the right to marry someone of the opposite gender is right and proper, and a benefit to a happy and healthy life; this is not true of homosexuals. I know that nobody is guaranteed a certain outcome, only certain opportunities, but I think we should strive to provide the best possible outcome for the maximum number of citizens. I think accepting and recognizing gay marriage would make people happy, and it would not harm anyone -- therefore I think it a good idea.

But this is where the incest / polygamy arguments start--when you argue that gay marriage "doesn't hurt anyone." Dirty Name would cynically argue that those marriages don't hurt anyone either, and for most people both types of marriages don't sit well.

(Another cynical charge I don't see--though it fits the bill--is that gay marriage would set a precedent that would also eventually allow marriages between / with minors / children. This one would definitely put the majority of people off.)

We can modify marriage law to state that marriage is permissible between two adults, but this doesn't exclude incest marriages. Even if we specify two unrelated adults, conservatives will still argue that modifying the law will set a precedent for other non-traditional marriages.

I haven't found a conclusive death blow to silence this line of attack, aside from arguing that when permitting miscegenation marriages was being debated, judges didn't restrict it on the grounds that "it might lead to a precedent that would allow gay marriage."

However, for many gay marriage advocates, it has. So we're back to a very tricky position, Coffee.

[Jack]

We can modify marriage law to state that marriage is permissible between two adults, but this doesn't exclude incest marriages.

It doesn't need to. We're only talking marriage here, which does not infer anything about children. Few people get married for the sole purpose of having children. Some get married to legitimize the child or children already conceived, while others marry never intending or unable to have children of their own. Marriage is about the union of adult people into a single unit.
Many children are conceived outside marriage. Isn't this evidence that marriage and child-bearing should be considered separately under the law? Laws regarding children should be written without regard to the married state of the parents. Likewise, marriage can and should be considered apart from the issue of children. In light of that, what reason is there to deny marriage to any adults above the age of reason?

[fushigi]

Because marriage laws DO provide legitimacy in society to certain types of relationships and deny legitimacy to others. Permitting mixed marriages sent a strong message to Americans that integration should be embraced, and segregation and racial discrimination would no longer be tolerated in the US. Likewise, gay marriage laws send a strong message to Americans that homophobia and bigotry are bankrupt institutions.

That's the crux of why I support gay marriage and refuse to support incestuous marriage. Gay marriage activists only shoot themselves in the foot when they proclaim "anyone should be allowed to marry anyone."

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: fushigi Because marriage laws DO provide legitimacy in society to certain types of relationships and deny legitimacy to others. Permitting mixed marriages sent a strong message to Americans that integration should be embraced, and segregation and racial discrimination would no longer be tolerated in the US. Likewise, gay marriage laws send a strong message to Americans that homophobia and bigotry are bankrupt institutions. That's the crux of why I support gay marriage and refuse to support incestuous marriage. Gay marriage activists only shoot themselves in the foot when they proclaim "anyone should be allowed to marry anyone."

I would like to know what exactly is wrong with incestuous marriages. As far as I know, the genetic implications for children are no more serious that when two people of African heritage marry, putting their children at risk for sickle-cell anemia, or when two people of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage marry, putting their children at risk of Tay-Sachs disease. Or two people who carry any recessive genes of any kind. As Isherwood pointed out, marriage and child-rearing should be seen as legally separate, even if they are part and parcel of building families in many people's eyes.

Apart from groundless worries about inbreeding, why should we disapprove of incestuous marriages? If bigotry really is a bankrupt institution, as you said, then why maintain this form of bigotry? Because it's yicky? As I said before, there are lots of marriages that I consider yicky, but that has nothing to do with whether the marriage should be legal. If people are so instinctively opposed to incest, then it won't happen anyway, will it?

As for a redefinition of marriage opening the door to adults marrying minors, it can't happen, because minors can't agree to a legal contract. Minors, as far as I know, can marry now with parental permission, so I don't see how that would change. People marrying animals is also not possible: animals cannot consent to the marriage, nor are they persons with rights -- and no matter how far we go toward giving our pets rights, they aren't going to reach equal status.

Is it possible that far in the future someone will concoct an argument as to why they should be allowed to marry their guinea pig? Sure. And when the mass-guinea pig-marrying movement starts, I'll start worrying about it.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: Hmm And since when do peoples' natural reactions determine the legality of situations? It makes no sense whatsoever to pass laws just because you think it is "disgusting."

Where do laws come from unless someone doesn't think it's disgusting. Look how many laws we have. Look at seat belt laws. That to me should be personal choice, but it's not. Helmet laws, same thing.

Where do morals come from? I think it's basically an opinion. It sometimes is the reaction that will occur because of an action. Harm can come as a by-product of something. It's just thinking ahead, and not living in the moment in MHO.

Because homosexuality was never totally accepted until recently, a lot of people are looking at it with caution. What will be the side effects of letting them marry. Will it make our society less family-oriented. Will it cause more promiscuity among the young. By itself or isolated it may seem like a harmless thing, but I'd have to think many people don't think it will be good for families, or our youth because the youth are so immature and vulnerable to peer pressure. You can take a cavalier attitude towards it as being harmless, so therefore it should be allowed, but because it's been against so many cultures standards for so long, it's like maybe they knew something we don't.

Religion has changed a lot over the years, so I think if homosexuality had been truly harmless it would have been given some measure of acceptance sooner. Religion is so complicated, but mostly people don't totally follow it in MHO unless they are zombies. This is just an opinion, it's not the law. The law will have to figure it out, with all the learned men and women we have floating around in government. :)

[Marilyn Monroe]

[quote=CoffeeSaint;379493]

I would like to know what exactly is wrong with incestuous marriages.

This is probably one reason people are being so cautious about gay marriage. You are kidding, right?

Your view seems to be nothing is wrong as long as the people are consenting. What a mess this world is going to be in. People will be screwing on the streets for heaven's sakes.

There were reasons for morals because people tend to get carried away for one thing, and how can you keep people from becoming complete animals. Incest is a lack of control. It's screwing for the sake of screwing. What kind of families would we have if everybody was screwing everybody, and the poor children. Talk about a mess. This is called standards, and you have to have some, or everybody will go totally nuts.

As far as having a kid with your brother/sister they would inherit all the diseases that are prominent in the family, so if you have diabetes, the kids will get it, heart disease, same thing. That doesn't matter to me though, it's just the very idea. People have to learn self-control, especially with sex. That's the nature of the beast.

:eek:

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe This is probably one reason people are being so cautious about gay marriage. You are kidding, right?

Not in the least.

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Your view seems to be nothing is wrong as long as the people are consenting. What a mess this world is going to be in. People will be screwing on the streets for heaven's sakes.

They already do, to whatever extent they want to -- I can't imagine why anyone would want to; I would think concrete would hurt.

I do think it is quite a jump from saying that legal recognition of an incestuous marriage is acceptable, to saying ANYTHING GOES!!! LET'S PARTY!!!

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe There were reasons for morals because people tend to get carried away for one thing, and how can you keep people from becoming complete animals. Incest is a lack of control. It's screwing for the sake of screwing. What kind of families would we have if everybody was screwing everybody, and the poor children. Talk about a mess. This is called standards, and you have to have some, or everybody will go totally nuts.

What on earth are you talking about? I asked why an incestuous marriage is objectively any worse than any other kind of marriage; who said anything about randy people screwing anything that moves? Is that what you think of when you think of government recognition of marriage, that it is a seal of approval for sex? Because I don't.

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe As far as having a kid with your brother/sister they would inherit all the diseases that are prominent in the family, so if you have diabetes, the kids will get it, heart disease, same thing. That doesn't matter to me though, it's just the very idea. People have to learn self-control, especially with sex. That's the nature of the beast. :eek:

As for congenital defects in the children, I doubt that the chances of children inheriting a host of diseases would be any less with marriage outside of the family, not after a single generation. Yes, if inbreeding occurred over a lengthy period, it would become problematic; do you think that likely? Do you think legalizing incestuous marriage would make people found colonies of inbred mutants in the hills somewhere? Do you think this hasn't already happened, legal marriage be damned?

Come talk to me again when you have something to say on the issue. I care not a fig for people's sex lives, and I have no interest in discussing self-control and sexual mores.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint;379516 [quote They already do, to whatever extent they want to -- I can't imagine why anyone would want to; I would think concrete would hurt.

I know, the homeless do it out on the streets, and up against the buildings. They can also be arrested for it if they get caught.

I do think it is quite a jump from saying that legal recognition of an incestuous marriage is acceptable, to saying ANYTHING GOES!!! LET'S PARTY!!!

I don't!

What on earth are you talking about? I asked why an incestuous marriage is objectively any worse than any other kind of marriage; who said anything about randy people screwing anything that moves? Is that what you think of when you think of government recognition of marriage, that it is a seal of approval for sex? Because I don't.

I think it is. It's putting it's stamp of approval that they can have sex.

As for congenital defects in the children, I doubt that the chances of children inheriting a host of diseases would be any less with marriage outside of the family, not after a single generation. Yes, if inbreeding occurred over a lengthy period, it would become problematic; do you think that likely? Do you think legalizing incestuous marriage would make people found colonies of inbred mutants in the hills somewhere? Do you think this hasn't already happened, legal marriage be damned?

I'm no biologist, but I do believe your less intelligent types would be more into this sort of thing where pregnancy would occur.. I think incest probably happens a lot especially with brothers and brothers, and sisters and brothers, and so on. Also probably happens more with stepparents than biological parents, but that's another story.

Come talk to me again when you have something to say on the issue. I care not a fig for people's sex lives, and I have no interest in discussing self-control and sexual mores.

But I think you do care about people's sex lives. It's what makes the world go round. I don't believe all this "I don't care stuff". You think incest is ok, so you have thought about this. Sex is everywhere, so saying you don't care what people are doing, I don't believe this. We're all snoopy, we all like to know details.

I don't care what people are doing to a degree, but I would not tolerate some behaviors without having to speak up.

I'm saying the no harm deal is avoiding the issue. Scandinavian countries are having a lot of problems because of all their relaxed sexual mores. There unwed mother rates are real high. Nobody gets married till after the first kid is born, if ever. Not good family stucture. Everything is loose, maybe too loose.

[CoffeeSaint]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe I know, the homeless do it out on the streets, and up against the buildings. They can also be arrested for it if they get caught. I don't! I think it is. It's putting it's stamp of approval that they can have sex. I'm no biologist, but I do believe your less intelligent types would be more into this sort of thing where pregnancy would occur.. I think incest probably happens a lot especially with brothers and brothers, and sisters and brothers, and so on. Also probably happens more with stepparents than biological parents, but that's another story. But I think you do care about people's sex lives. It's what makes the world go round. I don't believe all this "I don't care stuff". You think incest is ok, so you have thought about this. Sex is everywhere, so saying you don't care what people are doing, I don't believe this. We're all snoopy, we all like to know details. I don't care what people are doing to a degree, but I would not tolerate some behaviors without having to speak up. I'm saying the no harm deal is avoiding the issue. Scandinavian countries are having a lot of problems because of all their relaxed sexual mores. There unwed mother rates are real high. Nobody gets married till after the first kid is born, if ever. Not good family stucture. Everything is loose, maybe too loose.

I wholeheartedly disagree that snooping into other people's sex lives is what makes the world go around; I also don't think that sex is what makes the world go around, if that's what you meant. But apparently I can't describe my personal feelings, because you simply don't believe me. On what do you base your doubts? Do you know anything about me? Do you know how large a role sex plays in my life? You don't.

You look at marriage as revolving around sex; very well. I simply disagree with you. I think marriage is, as Isherwood said, two people becoming a single unit; whether or not those two people are rutting or not has nothing to do with it, in my eyes. Because I think that, I don't care what relationship those two people have, or what the potential forms or effects of their rutting might be. I they want to pledge themselves to becoming a couple, then I say, Let them.

I don't think that our prurient and Puritannical fascination with others' sex lives should form the basis of our society's laws. And I don't see anything particularly wrong with the "problems" you describe in Scandinavia: if kids are raised by caring and intelligent parents, I care not a whit if those parents are married, or if there is one or two parents. Marriage, again, is about the two people involved and their connection to one another, not about their children and not about their sex lives.

[Hmm]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Where do morals come from? I think it's basically an opinion. It sometimes is the reaction that will occur because of an action. Harm can come as a by-product of something. It's just thinking ahead, and not living in the moment in MHO.

I'm not sure I understand. Are you trying to say that marrying your mother would be immoral?

Will it make our society less family-oriented. Will it cause more promiscuity among the young.

Why would it?

By itself or isolated it may seem like a harmless thing, but I'd have to think many people don't think it will be good for families, or our youth because the youth are so immature and vulnerable to peer pressure.

What new types of peer pressure would youths be subject to?

You can take a cavalier attitude towards it as being harmless, so therefore it should be allowed, but because it's been against so many cultures standards for so long, it's like maybe they knew something we don't.

No, it's not. It's because they were too irrational and feared homosexuality.

[Marilyn Monroe]

[quote=Hmm;379693]

I'm not sure I understand. Are you trying to say that marrying your mother would be immoral?

Yep.

Why would it?

Just doesn't seem right.

What new types of peer pressure would youths be subject to?

Getting more into bi-sexual activity. It would all be meshed together.

No, it's not. It's because they were too irrational and feared homosexuality.

I don't think they feared it, they just thought it was a perversion from the norm, it was not meant to be. That's all I can figure.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint;379651[quote ]I wholeheartedly disagree that snooping into other people's sex lives is what makes the world go around; I also don't think that sex is what makes the world go around, if that's what you meant. But apparently I can't describe my personal feelings, because you simply don't believe me. On what do you base your doubts? Do you know anything about me? Do you know how large a role sex plays in my life? You don't.

I believe you believe what you believe, but you may not be as cynical as I am. I think most people are fascinated with sex, and want to know all that they can know about it.

You look at marriage as revolving around sex; very well. I simply disagree with you. I think marriage is, as Isherwood said, two people becoming a single unit; whether or not those two people are rutting or not has nothing to do with it, in my eyes. Because I think that, I don't care what relationship those two people have, or what the potential forms or effects of their rutting might be. I they want to pledge themselves to becoming a couple, then I say, Let them.

I know what men are like, and sex is number one. There may be love in there, but I'm sure it's not quite the same as the love a woman feels. Men have a tendency to be territorial, also. Don't forget mostly everything from the beginning of time was written by men. The bible, Ten Commandments, a lot of the philosophy,sex was almost always in there.

I don't think that our prurient and Puritannical fascination with others' sex lives should form the basis of our society's laws. And I don't see anything particularly wrong with the "problems" you describe in Scandinavia: if kids are raised by caring and intelligent parents, I care not a whit if those parents are married, or if there is one or two parents. Marriage, again, is about the two people involved and their connection to one another, not about their children and not about their sex lives.

I think it's more secure for kids to know Mom and Dad are permanent. In a perfect world marriage would be about the two people involved, but unfortunately we live in the world with a whole lot of distractions.

[Hmm]

Quote by: Marilyn Monroe Yep.

Why?

Just doesn't seem right.

I think you misunderstood. I was asking why the acceptance of homosexuality would cause our society to be less family oriented or encourage promiscuity.

Getting more into bi-sexual activity. It would all be meshed together.

What's wrong with bisexuality?

[fushigi]

Quote by: CoffeeSaint I would like to know what exactly is wrong with incestuous marriages. As far as I know, the genetic implications for children are no more serious that when two people of African heritage marry, putting their children at risk for sickle-cell anemia, or when two people of Ashkenazi Jewish heritage marry, putting their children at risk of Tay-Sachs disease.

Very good point. However, sickle cell anemia doesn't cause mental retardation or extreme physical mutation. Tay-Sachs disease is not nearly as prevalent a problem as it was in the 19th century, and even then--as an autosomal recessive disease--it only affected 25% of children from parents who were BOTH carriers. With incest,

a fourth to half of father-daughter and brother-sister offspring have mental or physical deficiencies.

So yes, incestuous breeding is a big problem. As for your second point--that the purpose of marriage is not for breeding, so why even bring it up--I agree completely. People don't have to marry to have children, and not every couple that marries has children.

However, like I said, marriage laws legitimize behavior, and legitimizing incest is a bad idea. We don't want to encourage fathers and older brothers to pressure their daughters and younger sisters into having sex with them. I'd much rather brothers continue to think of their sisters as "icky" and vice versa. Young girls deserve to have at least a few men in the world who won't try to have sex with them.

fushigi

[Marilyn Monroe]

Hmm;379768

I think you misunderstood. I was asking why the acceptance of homosexuality would cause our society to be less family oriented or encourage promiscuity.

Homosexuality is already accepted. Homosexual mariage would change the definition of marriage, and any time something changes, and this would be a big change, it will change everything. Could be for the good, could be for the bad. There's noway to know except to look at other countries that already allow it.

I believe it would encourage our youth to engage in behavior they aren't oriented to just to see. Our adolescents are the most vulnerable members of society because they have raging hormones as it is.

What's wrong with bisexuality?

I didn't say it was wrong, but this behavior is hedonistic, and licentious in MHO.

[Marilyn Monroe]

[quote=fushigi;379906]

However, like I said, marriage laws legitimize behavior, and legitimizing incest is a bad idea. We don't want to encourage fathers and older brothers to pressure their daughters and younger sisters into having sex with them. I'd much rather brothers continue to think of their sisters as "icky" and vice versa. Young girls deserve to have at least a few men in the world who won't try to have sex with them.fushigi

Good point! :)