Homosexual Marriage

[Starboy]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, Osborn, you and Starboy are both mistaken in thinking that "American" values have been made mockery of by majorities saying "No" to homosexual marriage. Would you say, "I want to marry my daughter, I want to marry my mother, I want to marry my dog, I want to marry 47 wimmen. I want to marry my friend's two year-old daughter, and I WILL have sex with my wife. You may not violate my right to do so?" Is there any line you would draw, beyond which marriage is not acceptable? My argument is not based upon religion, but upon tradition. If you still haven't deduced this important distinction, then we are arguing past one another, and no further discussion is necessary or possible. You may continue to mischaracterize my argument to your heart's content. But you need to understand that you are engaging in a STRAWMAN argument, not directly responding to what I argue.

I would not want to do any of those things. And some of them are illegal. But some are also long standing traditions. Royalty of Europe did marry children for many centuries. As for marrying a daughter it is a bad idea for genetic reasons. But there is a reason for that particular taboo. Even so the royalty of Europe practiced marrying close relatives for many centuries. In Islamic culture men did have 47 wives and more. As for having sex with minors, that is illegal because it harms children. Not because of any taboo. We don’t allow people to harm others. But we are not talking about any of these. In fact we are not talking about stopping anything that is not already happening. Homosexuals are already living with each other. They are already forming pair bonds. They are having sex. They are paying their taxes, mowing their lawns. They are caring for each other until one or both of them dies. They are a couple united in every way except by recognition of their status as a family by their government. Your argument is a straw man because I am not advocating or talking about any of the examples of tradition that you are talking about. There is no marriage mentioned in the constitution. You could say that as a tradition of this country it is none of the governments business, that the government has no place sanctifying anybodies marriage. It is you that are trying to break tradition not I.

Starboy

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, Osborn, you and Starboy are both mistaken in thinking that "American" values have been made mockery of by majorities saying "No" to homosexual marriage. Would you say, "I want to marry my daughter, I want to marry my mother, I want to marry my dog, I want to marry 47 wimmen. I want to marry my friend's two year-old daughter, and I WILL have sex with my wife. You may not violate my right to do so?" Is there any line you would draw, beyond which marriage is not acceptable? My argument is not based upon religion, but upon tradition. If you still haven't deduced this important distinction, then we are arguing past one another, and no further discussion is necessary or possible. You may continue to mischaracterize my argument to your heart's content. But you need to understand that you are engaging in a STRAWMAN argument, not directly responding to what I argue.

If homosexuals can get married, then the next think you know people will be having sex with chickens. Your argument IS a logical fallacy, so don't go accusing anyone of a strawman. Tradition and Religion are both just as useless and dogmatic anyways. Incest is not an issue at hand, and extending a line does not mean removing it or extending it further.
And I see no reason why it should be illegal to marry incestually, it harms no one, it shouldn't be a crime. It will be frowned upon, of course, which is good, cause that shit is sick, but so will homosexuals being married, and that is fine, homosexuality i kinda gross, but grossness shouldn't be a crime. Then again, I guess detracting from the homosexual issue we are talking about is the goal of you fallacy anyways, so perhaps you should just ignore this paragraph.

[Osborn F Enready]

Pat Henry said: Would you say, "I want to marry my daughter, I want to marry my mother, I want to marry my dog, I want to marry 47 wimmen. I want to marry my friend's two year-old daughter, and I WILL have sex with my wife. You may not violate my right to do so?"

Is there any line you would draw, beyond which marriage is not acceptable?

I say: No Pat, I think you know I would say that most of what you printed is wrong, and I would not condone it. I however WOULD NEVER DECIDE FOR SOMEONE ELSE what THEY can or CAN'T call marriage.

Who has the authority, by the Constitution, to define marriage? Surely not the federal government!?! It is the churches obligation to insure its priests and all agents of their name peform up to THEIR STANDARDS OF ETHICS. What you are seeing is the breakdown of churches, from the inside, because they cannot enforce their own rules amongst themselves.

Church, all of them considered seperate, or the same entity, are seperate and operate as a non-profit business. It is the DUTY of that BUSINESS(the church) to DEFINE ITS OWN SET OF POLICY THAT ITS AGENTS(priests, ministers, pastors, etc...) WOULD PERFORM IN THEIR(the churches) NAME.

I simply cannot define this any clearer.

If the religious allow the government to perform marriages, without the conscent of the church, than once again, WHO IS TO BLAME?

The people of the church, as it is THEM who should have cried foul and united with others to KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT OF MARRIAGE AND RELIGION, but they didn't because it aided their cause, am I mistaken here?

[PatrickHenry]

I am not in favor of a Federal amendment disallowing homosexual marriage. I do not think it would be necessary for states to so amend their constitutions either. A simple law defining the circumstances of a legal marrige would be sufficient. The only counter to this would be judges who feel they have a right to define the circumstances. But judges are less representative of majorities than are legislatures. In answer to your question: "Who has the authority, by the Constitution, to define marriage?" there is only one answer. The majority of voters or their representatives in a legislature.

I would like the government out of the marriage business, too. I don't think that JPs should be doing weddings. I don't think a marriage license is necessary. I think if homosexuals can find a minister who will perform the ceremony, they can call themselves "married." If majorites of the traditionalist citizenry snort and raise their eyebrows at such a situation, I have attempted in this thread to ascertain why.

I am not in favor of laws which favor married people over others who are unmarried. I believe that is discrimination and thus unfair. These are my views and I think them reasonable.

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, I am not in favor of a Federal amendment disallowing homosexual marriage. I do not think it would be necessary for states to so amend their constitutions either. A simple law defining the circumstances of a legal marrige would be sufficient. The only counter to this would be judges who feel they have a right to define the circumstances. But judges are less representative of majorities than are legislatures. In answer to your question: "Who has the authority, by the Constitution, to define marriage?" there is only one answer. The majority of voters or their representatives in a legislature.

No, the only answer is no one does, not the Government in any form: local, federal, nothing. Marriage is not an institute that the government should have a part in at all. I would gladly support an amendment like that.

[Osborn F Enready]

I too, as I agree it is no business of the government at all.

If the church wishes to pass a ruling that clarifies marriage, it is their obligation to do so.

[Starboy]

I also think that we should not conflate marriage with family. I think that family members need recognition under the law but that there needs to be more than one way to form a family. Not all of us are religious. It should not be required by law that you can only have a family that is approved by some damn religion.

Starboy

[Osborn F Enready]

Ok, so how about this approach....

If this all about traditionalists, is it not tradition according to the sanctity of marriage TILL DEATH DO YOU PART?

Is divorce legal, according to traditionalists?

Should it be, or not?

[Starboy]

Originally posted by Osborn F Enready, Ok, so how about this approach.... If this all about traditionalists, is it not tradition according to the sanctity of marriage TILL DEATH DO YOU PART? Is divorce legal, according to traditionalists? Should it be, or not?

I really don't care. It is up to those that hold the tradition. If you do not abide by such traditions then they shouldn't apply to you. In any case it should not be the governments job to uphold the traditions of any group exept those traditions that Americans hold in common. Any group that is already free to practice their traditions should not be dictating them to any other group. If they think they can do such things then they are fair game to have traditions dictated to them by people who do not hold to their traditions. The Christian traditionalists have gone way too far in deciding that their traditions should be everyone's traditions.

Starboy

[Osborn F Enready]

Starboy, you are preaching to the choir with me sir.

I understand that, I am only trying to bring up the point using reverse psychology.

If one is accepted, and has been for so long without an uprising against the system for endorsing divorce, what makes this different, and why one and not the other?

See what I mean?

[Starboy]

I am just chiming in. The argument of tradition is just as weak an argument as religion in a society that values freedom and choice. I just wanted to point out that the religious are setting a precedent. I can't wait till they become a minority. By meddling in the freedoms of others they now make themselves fair game for meddling from others. Payback is a bitch.

Starboy

[5010]

Divorce is so common that marriage has become pretty much irrelevant. Guys, if you want women to become more interested in you, try putting a ring on your finger. It's crazy.

[nykoelle]

I've participated in this debate so many times, I have my argument prewritten :) Here I goooo !

"Homosexual marriages will threaten the sanctity of marriage." I've yet to see how this makes sense. I've also yet to see how marriage is holy or revered in any way in the eyes of the government. For many reasons I don't believe sanctity has anything to do with the legality of marriage. For starts, Las Vegas. Other points include Hollywood rollercoaster marriages and already current high divorce rates. Also keep in mind that homosexuals, regardless of their legal recognition, are still joined in many cases, emotionally, and many such couples have been a unrecognized married couple longer than many straight couples. So how does gay marriage threaten anything about marriage? How is marriage suddenly, in a legal sense, something that has to be protected only in the case of homosexuality?

Let's start with Las Vegas. According to a Las Vegas tourism guide, "adults 18 years of age and older need no consent to be married in Nevada. (ref 1)" The site goes on to give conditions so a 16 year old could be wed, and that a marriage may, and I emphasize may, be denied if proof of age is unavailable. According to another Las Vegas guide, " In 1994, 99,310 wedding licenses were issued in the Las Vegas area (ref 2)." How sacred and planned can these weddings be? What institution of marriage is being respected? The get drunk and marry someone you barely know institution? We all know that has been known to happen, a big example would be the recent Britney Spears marriage that lasted less than 24 hours. I don't see how any respect is taken in those situations, yet they're perfectly legal and recognized. Las Vegas is somewhat famous for it, I mean, doesn't everyone want to be wed by an Elvis? Marriages in Vegas almost make marriage a laughing matter, yet is completely legal. On the other side of things, a gay marriage, a marriage that could be between two people that have been together for most of their lives, isn't legally recognized. Something about this does not add up.

Hollywood, Hollywood, Hollywood. Thanks to Hollywood, divorce can almost be a laugh. Many limelight couples get divorced only after hours, and the press is all over it. What kind of message does this send to people? Millions upon millions of dollars in settlement, usually given to the woman in a marriage, and symbols of the woman being all powerful. Sure, this is great for the woman, but this also encourages divorce, showing that it's not that big of a deal, and if the big wigs can do it all the time, so can we. In Hollywood, marriage is hardly respected. Look at The Donald's breakup with Ivana. Ivana walked away with something like 10 million dollars, easy. Does this kind of message encourage well thought marriages, or the "marry someone rich and take them for all they're worth" message? I choose the latter, and also point it out as another reason marriage is anything but respected, legally, in this country, if these things can happen.

On the same note of divorce, according to DivorceWizards.com, a divorce advisory website, approximately 50% of all marriages will end in divorce (ref 3). Wow. That number is remarkably high, especially considering that is only between straight couples. So how, how in this sense is marriage a revered institution that needs to be protected and respected? How in this sense is marriage threatened by opening up legal recognition to the gay community, that has already coupled without the legal drama behind it? Most couples that rushed to get married in the different states that opened marriage were long time couples. If anything, I feel that nationwide acceptance and legal recognition of gay marriages will reduce the divorce rate. There will be fewer Governor McGreevey's marrying straight to be married and to be granted the rights associated with marriage. Families will be easier to form based on real love, not just need for legal protection. I definitely feel that if gay marriage is counted, that statistic will drop, and marriage may get back on the right track.

I've yet to really figure out the true meaning behind the institution of marriage, especially in legal terms. I understand religiously, how gay marriage could be a threat, as some religions don't believe in it. However, the Church and the state are separate for a reason. Many people in this country have different religious beliefs, and its primarily for that reason that religious views aren't supposed to influence our laws. Though, that's a completely different debate. My point is this: it is the law's job to protect us, whether it be from eachother or ourselves. What is a law opposing gay marriage protecting anyone from? What is it preventing? In the above examples, it is clear to see that marriage is obviously held in low regard in this country, legally speaking, so why are we suddenly trying to put rules and restrictions on it? If any steps should be taken to prevent marriage from going completely haywire, Las Vegas chapels should require something like a week's length of applying for a marriage certificate, and maybe better research behind it. Hollywood shouldn't publicize the great outcomings of divorce either. These are the kinds of things that insult marriage, not two people joining forever, both legally and emotionally.

As I've said before, gay marriages in the legal system is nothing more than granting rights to a group of people that have most likely already coupled, and have felt married already in their own lives. There is no threat to the marriage institution, if anything, the lack of rules on straight marriages and the complete disrespect towards it in places like Hollywood and Vegas is more a threat to the sanctity of marriage than anything. Love is not.


Reference 1: http://www.lasvegastourism.com/marriage1.htm
Reference 2: http://www.lvol.com/lvoleg/hist/lvfact.html
Reference 3: http://www.divorcewizards.com/divorcestats.html

[Rainbow]

Quote by: PatrickHenry All eleven states where the question was presented on 11/2/2004 voted to disallow homosexual marriage.

It should cover all the 50 states.
That is good enough that the majority of people tolerate homosexualists. The acceptance is a choice and/or option.

[Rainbow]

PatrickHenry

Your poll does not have the option with concern to :
- Mankind's existance, which is the most vital and fundamental issue
Have you overlooked that on a purpose ? What sort of a poll is that ?
You have packed all non-social issues into "Other : I will explain below" option.

Homosexualists marriages is not the social issue as the most important, but one of many.
What is more important, then :
- the Mankind's existance or a small percentage of the Mankind's sexually unbalanced (put it very mildly) ?

[bullshitdetector]

Quote by: PatrickHenry That is a personal insult, Starboy. Not very nice. While you accuse me, I am not accusing anyone, simply attempting to explain WHAT IS... Do not confuse me with others who hold objectionable opinions. I am not a generic debater. I have sympathy for the circumstances homosexuals find themselves in. It is not I who refuse them the "freedom" to marry. In my opinion, marriage is a traditional concept and that tradition does not include homosexuals marrying a same-sex partner. In my view, what I am doing here is "seeking first to understand." You demand freedom for everyone? That is quite a slippery road. Freedom to do what? Rename behavior? Redefine anything we so choose, causing all common ground to disappear from beneath our feet?

There is where you and I agree, PH. I see nothing wrong with a civil union, the rights equal to gay couples and any other 'unit' under the sun that brings people together with the exception of beastiality, marrying your gun, your 4wheeler and such. Marriage has a definition and in that definition it is defined as a union between a man and a woman. No different than trying to redefine what a tin cup is and calling it a glass goblet. They can be viewed as equal but different in their own right, but not to be confused as the same because they simply are not. Same sex unions can have all the wrappings on this mortal earth as any heterosexual union which has a definition (marriage). Call it anything you like but there is no need to redefine everything, there is enough room for growth within our vocabulary to accept another term for an entirely different concept.

[Suburbanite]

So the Dictionary has become the law of the land now? Well, Webster says such and such, it must always remain this way.

[OberonDOtherseid]

The dictionary also has the word homophobe, so in essence I agree with you that the dictionary is a flacid dick of literal contention.

However, the dictionary isn't responsible for creating the concept. Homophobe is a label, marriage is not.

Gas pumper does not = meat cutter whereas homophobe does = slander/politically correct labeling/profiling.

[Suburbanite]

it is as much profiling as any adjective, or even a noun. Calling someone a homophobe is as labeling as calling someone white isn't it? Though, I can understand why people have a problem with being labeled in such a way, in fact, I even agree with the logic. Labeling allows people to mentally mark a group of people based on certain true or false impressions. Like when people label homosexuals and think that all homosexuals have rampant sex. When anyone against homosexual marriage is labeled a homophobe it enforces a stereotype of, perhaps, Christian Red Necks or something.
It always sucks to be labeled, but wonder to label others, it really helps us digest issues.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: Rainbow PatrickHenry Your poll does not have the option with concern to : - Mankind's existance, which is the most vital and fundamental issue Have you overlooked that on a purpose ? What sort of a poll is that ? You have packed all non-social issues into "Other : I will explain below" option. Homosexualists marriages is not the social issue as the most important, but one of many. What is more important, then : - the Mankind's existance or a small percentage of the Mankind's sexually unbalanced (put it very mildly) ?

Rainbow, I rarely debate you since your posts are often inscrutable. And even here, I can't figure what you are really driving at.

In my poll, I did the best I could to provide what I thought might be the most common responses to a controversial issue. I knew I couldn't think of everything, so I left the option to the debaters to bring up another, unforeseen viewpoint. I overlooked nothing on purpose. Extend me a little grace.

Now to the issue you raised: Mankind's existence. Are you implying that the future and continuing existence of humanity is threatened by same-sex marriage? That would be a very far-fetched argument, mainly because so few of us are likely to abandon our opposite gender partners and traditional families in preference to a same-sex union. I just don't see that as a realistic argument. Or are you saying something else?