Homosexual Marriage

[Tycoon]

The thread is called Homosexual Marriage. Gay marriage is a subdivision of marriage. If marriage is not justified, it follows that gay marriage is not justified.

And if you could prove that marriage is not justified for either heterosexuals or homosexuals, then that would be fine. This debate, however, starts based on the fact that the government does recognize marriages, at least heterosexual marriages. The discussion whether or not it should is a different topic.

Again, the thread is about gay marriage; not gay relationships vs. hetero relationships. It's been proved over and over again in this thread that a homosexual relationship is equal to a heterosexual relationship. However, the argument against gays is only half the debate. If it were the only thing you needed to address, the thread would be called "Homoesexuals"; not "Homosexual Marriage".

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Therefore, in order to learn more about a square you cannot study a rectangle.

We are discussing homosexual marriage here, but not all marriages are homosexual marriages. To study homosexual marriage you cannot study all marriages. It is a different topic.

So, again, why should gay relationships be recognised by the government?

Why should heterosexual relationships be recognised by the government? Something entirely irrelevant to the homosexual marriage debate. This doesn't belong here. Just make a new thread and I'll discuss it there.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Tyke And if you could prove that marriage is not justified for either heterosexuals or homosexuals, then that would be fine. This debate, however, starts based on the fact that the government does recognize marriages, at least heterosexual marriages.

Doesn't say that in the OP.

Regardless of whether it's derived from one against marriage in general, any argument against gay marriage is perfectly on topic in this thread.

Quote by: Tyke All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. Therefore, in order to learn more about a square you cannot study a rectangle.

But if one rule is known about rectangles, we know that it will also apply to squares.

If there's no reason to recognise marriage at all, we know that there is no reason to recognise gay marriage.

Quote by: Tyke We are discussing homosexual marriage here, but not all marriages are homosexual marriages. To study homosexual marriage you cannot study all marriages. It is a different topic.

If your argument in this thread has been that gay relationships should be equal to hetero relationships under the law, surely anything which applies to hetero relationships must also apply to gay ones.

Quote by: Tyke Why should heterosexual relationships be recognised by the government?

They shouldn't.

And you're right, it is irrelevant. That's why I'm asking you to forget herero marriage and tell me specifically why gay relationships should be recognised by the government?

[Tycoon]

Whether it's derived from one against marriage in general, any argument against gay marriage is perfectly on topic in this thread.

No, it's not, because that is not an argument against gay marriage, it is an argument against marriage. This thread acknowledges that current law provides benefits for heterosexual marriage, and is not discussing that, it is discussing whether or not homosexual marriage should get the same benefits. Whether or not those benefits exist is a different topic.

But if one rule is known about rectangles, we know that it will also apply to squares. If there's no reason to recognise marriage at all, we know that there is no reason to recognise gay marriage.

But the same does not apply in the reverse. If a rule is known about squares, we don't know that it will also apply to rectangles. If we were to discuss whether or not homosexual marriage should be acknowledged by the government, that would be completely ignoring the existence of heterosexual marriage, and not saying that the same applies to heterosexual marriage. As this is a debate on the equality of the two, I cannot assume that what goes for homosexual marriage also goes for heterosexual marriage. That is my belief, but it is up for debate.

If your argument in this thread has been that gay relationships should be equal to hetero relationships under the law, surely anything which applies to hetero relationships must also apply to gay ones.

But as this is a debate, I cannot make that assumption. It is a different topic.

They shouldn't. And you're right, it is irrelevant. That's why I'm asking you to forget herero marriage and tell me specifically why gay relationships should be recognised by the government?

If heterosexual marriages are irrelevant in this thread then why won't you just make a new thread on whether or not marriage should be recognized by the government at all? That way you get to include everybody.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Tyke No, it's not, because that is not an argument against gay marriage, it is an argument against marriage.

Any argument against marriage is, by extension, an argument against gay marriage. In the same way that everything that's not a rectangle is, by extension, not a square.

Quote by: Tyke But the same does not apply in the reverse. If a rule is known about squares, we don't know that it will also apply to rectangles. If we were to discuss whether or not homosexual marriage should be acknowledged by the government, that would be completely ignoring the existence of heterosexual marriage, and not saying that the same applies to heterosexual marriage. As this is a debate on the equality of the two,

But that's just the point I've been making: it's not.

You're trying to make it simply about the issue of equality because it makes your position easier to defend. However, the fact remains that this thread is called "Gay Marriage" and, though many arguments have been put forward for gay relationships, no positive argument for gay marriage has been presented in this thread.

Quote by: Tyke If heterosexual marriages are irrelevant in this thread then why won't you just make a new thread on whether or not marriage should be recognized by the government at all?

Because the topic fits just as nicely into this thread.

[Marilyn Monroe]

Quote by: leegao Let me rephrase my views. I don't believe it is fair for society as a whole to treat homosexual couples discriminately, but that doesn't mean I myself don't find homosexuality a bit... weird. This doesn't mean I will go out there and hold a sign that says "God Hates Gays" or anything like that, it's something that I feel but won't act towards, and many of my friends share my feelings as well. PS: I do know some gay people including one couple and they are great people, that still doesn't qualm the weird-ness I feel when they start kissing and stuff. I know what I've just said may sound a bit hypocritical, and I'll admit it, it probably is, but I won't lie about it because it's just the way I am, and many of my friends as well, and while we don't exactly like to discriminate this way, it's sort of an unconscious act. Regarding the positive law however, I really don't believe that this would even fall under their jurisdiction at all.

I get weirded out when anybody starts kissing, especially in too ardent of a way. This is too personal to have observers. Socially I find it unacceptable. Little pecks or a kiss on the cheek is much more endearing to me. If I saw two gays doing the pecking stuff I would probably just think they must love each other. End of story. I don't really need to know about the sexual aspect of anyone's lives.

I'd say what you are experiencing is normal. You have feelings and emotions, and are not a statue.

I've started to get weirded out when people kiss on TV or in the movies when I know they are acting. Just doesn't get it for me anymore. There's been too much of it for too long. I like the old-fashioned, romantic love stories that involves the way people look at each other when they are in love. Like Tom Cruise and Renee Zellweiger in "Jerry McGuire" when he said, "you complete me", and she said, "you had me at hello".

[Tycoon]

Because the topic fits just as nicely into this thread.

No, it doesn't.



One observes gay marriage from the position that society currently provides benefits for marriage.

One observes gay marriage and questions the position that society should provide benefits for marriage.

One is about gay marriage.

One is about all marriage.

One is about the equality of the two.

One makes the assumption of their equality.



In the debate for gay marriage I am trying to prove that gays deserve the exact same benefits as anybody else. Whether or not those benefits exist doesn't matter, as long as neither side gets them if they didn't.

This is the last I'm going to say on the subject so if you really want to talk about it then just go make the new thread. It isn't very hard fyi.

[The Bacon Guy]

But this thread isn't just about equality for gays; it's about the actual marriage as well. It doesn't follow from "gays should be equal" that gay marriage should be recognised.

I'm not starting a new thread because I think people in this thread are drawing an illogical and invalid conclusion from the premise that gays should be treated equally. If that isn't addressed in this thread, the question posted nearly three-hundred pages back has not been answered and the thread has been a waste of time.

If you want to restrict yourself to arguing with those who say gay relationships aren't equal to heteros, then go for it. I'm just saying that this isn't the only aspect to be considered in drawing a conclusion on the issue of gay marriage.

[Tycoon]

But this thread isn't just about equality for gays; it's about the actual marriage as well.

But the issue about the marriage being discussed here is that it is not equal. Many of us consider civil unions to be less than equal.

It doesn't follow from "gays should be equal" that gay marriage should be recognised.

If heterosexual marriages are recognised, then yes, it does.

I'm not starting a new thread because I think people in this thread are drawing an illogical and invalid conclusion from the premise that gays should be treated equally. If that isn't addressed in this thread, the question posted nearly three-hundred pages back has not been answered and the thread has been a waste of time.

Nobody drew any conclusion on whether or not marriage as a whole should be government recognized, you came in here on a tangent that nobody was discussing rather than simply making a new thread.

If you want to restrict yourself to arguing with those who say gay relationships aren't equal to heteros, then go for it. I'm just saying that this isn't the only aspect to be considered in drawing a conclusion on the issue of gay marriage.

Good, I will. And if you don't want to restrict yourself to that, then make a new thread about whether or not marriage should be recognised by the government. At least when you do it won't be restricted to just homosexual marriage.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Tyke If heterosexual marriages are recognised, then yes, it does.

Two wrongs don't make a right. The solution to blacks lacking civil rights wasn't to remove the civil rights of white folk.

Quote by: Tyke Nobody drew any conclusion on whether or not marriage as a whole should be government recognized

If they are concluding that gay marriage should be recognised, they are concluding that marriage should be a government institution. And if that's the conclusion they arrive at, they must be prepared to defend it.

Equal rights for gays is all well and good, but this thread is about a specific method of bringing gays level with heteros, i.e. by introducing gay marriage. As such, anyone arguing for this method must have an argument for why this particular method is superior to the alternative, i.e. abolishing hetero marriage.

Quote by: Tyke you came in here on a tangent that nobody was discussing rather than simply making a new thread

Quote by: Tyke Good, I will. And if you don't want to restrict yourself to that, then make a new thread about whether or not marriage should be recognised by the government.

I hardly think it's up to you to decide what belongs in this thread. If you don't have an argument to back up your conclusion, no one is forcing you to post, but don't place the blame for your untenable position on me.

[Clementine]

As citizens of the U.S. we are all entitled to equal rights, this includes marriage.

[Tycoon]

Two wrongs don't make a right. The solution to blacks lacking civil rights wasn't to remove the civil rights of white folk.

Whoever said anything about two wrongs? I said if heterosexual marriages are recognised, then homosexual marriages should be recognised. I've also stated that if the government decides not to recognise homosexual marriage, then they should not recognise heterosexual marriage. Nobody has said so far that either of these two paths are right or wrong, and I don't intend to discuss whether they are or not, as it doesn't belong in this thread.

If they are concluding that gay marriage should be recognised, they are concluding that marriage should be a government institution. And if that's the conclusion they arrive at, they must be prepared to defend it. Equal rights for gays is all well and good, but this thread is about a specific method of bringing gays level with heteros, i.e. by introducing gay marriage. As such, anyone arguing for this method must have an argument for why this particular method is superior to the alternative, i.e. abolishing hetero marriage.

The only reason why this thread exists is because currently, the government does recognise heterosexual marriage, and nobody has proposed that it shouldn't. Therefore, the best way to give homosexual equal recognition is for the government to recognise homosexual marriage. How many times do I have to say this?

If the government did not recognise heterosexual marriage or provide it any benefits, then this thread would not exist, as homosexuals would be on equal footing. As I said, either path puts us on equal footing, and the discussion on which path is the right one is a different topic.

I hardly think it's up to you to decide what belongs in this thread. If you don't have an argument to back up your conclusion, no one is forcing you to post, but don't place the blame for your untenable position on me.

Are you reading anything I'm saying? I didn't decide what belongs in this thread, the original poster did. Do you see a poll option "neither marriage should be recognise"? No, because the original poster recognised the fact that heterosexual marriage is already recognised by the government. My conclusion is that homosexuals should have equal footing in every way in regards to marriage. Whether or not marriage as a whole is recognised by the government is a different topic and irrelevant to my conclusion.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Tyke Are you reading anything I'm saying? I didn't decide what belongs in this thread, the original poster did.

And the original poster mentioned nothing of equality; he asked whether gay marriage should be recognised. If marriage as a whole shouldn’t be recognised, neither should gay marriage. Nowhere in this thread’s OP does it mention that the existence of heterosexual marriage needs to be accepted.

If you find it easier just to argue against the irrational bigots who oppose gay marriage, then feel free to restrict yourself to that. But you can't hide behind this old "off-topic" nonsense to avoid addressing any of the more rational points.

[Tycoon]

And the original poster mentioned nothing of equality; he asked whether gay marriage should be recognised. If marriage as a whole shouldn’t be recognised, neither should gay marriage. Nowhere in this thread’s OP does it mention that the existence of heterosexual marriage needs to be accepted.

But allowing a homosexual union to labeled "marriage" apparently goes against the grain. All eleven states where the question was presented on 11/2/2004 voted to disallow homosexual marriage. Where do you stand?

Now clearly the original poster meant to hear our opinions of why homosexual marriage is denied, and it isn't denied because there's no reason for the government to recognise marriage, as heterosexual marriage is recognised.

If you find it easier just to argue against the irrational bigots who oppose gay marriage, then feel free to restrict yourself to that. But you can't hide behind this old "off-topic" nonsense to avoid addressing any of the more rational points.

If that's what this thread is directed towards doing, then that is what I will do. I never once said I wouldn't debate you, I simply want you to make a new thread.

[The Bacon Guy]

Quote by: Tyke Now clearly the original poster meant to hear our opinions of why homosexual marriage is denied and it isn't denied because there's no reason for the government to recognise marriage

He clearly asks where you stand; not where the government stands. He want's to hear opinions on why it should be denied; not analysis of the government's reason to deny it.

[Night]

The fact of the matter is, I can marry this:

Exhibit A


But not this:

Exhibit B


All because exhibit B has a different sexual organ. Lovely.

Your best non-religious argument is that it is not in the constitution to let same sex couples marry. But slavery was not prohibited in the original constitution either, our founding fathers had slaves. So in the end, opponents of same sex marriage, in my opinion, are simply discriminating.

[MiaFleur]

I live in England were Civil Partnership is allowed and I am so glad this law was passed, I was brought up by parents who were both very for Gay Rights.

The way I see it is this, marriage is about two people cementing their love for each other, why should only "straight" people be able to be allowed to celebrate their love.

[pikatore]

Quote by: MiaFleur I live in England were Civil Partnership is allowed and I am so glad this law was passed, I was brought up by parents who were both very for Gay Rights. The way I see it is this, marriage is about two people cementing their love for each other, why should only "straight" people be able to be allowed to celebrate their love.

I'm in england as well, and I completely agree.

[Calam]

I think the biggest problem with homosexual marriage is, marriage is a religious institution. Unfortunately, it has been tangled into matters of government, because at the time it was engaged on the federal level, there was no reason to consider an alternative. Men married women. Nobody considered the opposite. Simple.

Things aren't so simple now. Marriage is still a religious institution, so religious instititutions that institute marriage should, naturally, be allowed to decide who marries and who doesn't. The problem is the government is (and in a sense, always has been) interfering with this decision, because marriage and the government are intertwined.

Who a gay person lives with, shares their money with, and adopts kids with is really not my business. I cannot tell them what to do. But, as a member of the religion that marriage is based on, I think I should have a say on who marries who (or what, or how).

The only real solution here is that, seeing that marriage is a religious issue, it should be seperated from government influence entirely. The government's only concern should be (when it all boils down) who lives with who and what they're doing with their money and children. Call it something else, like other countries have: domestic partnership. I don't care. Just don't make me change my religious beliefs to accomodate someone else's relationship with the government.

If some other religion wants to accomodate a gay marriage, I can't make them do any different. If a member of my religion believes that gay marriage is ok, and allows it to occur, whatever-- they don't have a clear understanding of the religion they believe, but whatever-- just don't make me accept an addendum to my own religion, as enforced by the government.

[Jack]

If marriage is a religious institution, why can I go to a justice of the peace, ship captain or county clerk and become legally married without once stepping inside a church?

[Calam]

why can I go to a justice of the peace, ship captain or county clerk and become legally married without once stepping inside a church?

Because the government says you can. And that's my point. They shouldn't have a say in it because it has nothing to do with them. Notice you said "legally". Marriage shouldn't be associated with that word to begin with.