Same-Gender Marraige

[Softpaw]

{This is directed at all who read this topic} <br><br>Please be aware that no one is trying to force same-sex marriages onto anyone, or even onto religions. This issue is about government recognition of marriage and should be entirely separate from discussions regarding religion. Religious marriage and civil marriage should have nothing to do with each other by virtue of the first amendment.<br><br>Unfortunately, the two are linked in the minds of a lot of people, which makes my job a LOT harder. I've yet to hear a good non-religious argument against marriage equality, which I think is reason enough to legalize same-sex marriages. If a church doesn't want to recognize a same-sex marriage, fine, but that sort of discrimination should NOT be written into law at ANY level.

[Burning Sheep Productions]

I'm for it cuz, like, it'd be cruel and stuff to restrict people just because of something they can't help, it's like not letting black people marry or something, terrible.<br><br><br>But I'm wondering something, do gays/bis think that it's a good thing and stuff or are they just accepting of themself?

[Softpaw]

Well, I'm gay, and I think it's a good thing...

[Burning Sheep Productions]

Umm... sorry but I can't think of why.

[Henohenomoheji]

Pull a Llewellyn on them... or would they not catch on as quickly as in the fictional world?

[norsenerd]

As for the pool I abstained because saying "I am for it" or "I am agaisnt it" or "Decline to coment" all are wrong and I dont; want to say soemthign I think is worng about such an important topic.<br><br>My political opinion is that the government have the exact same laws for issuing marige certificates to people reguarless of the sex of thsoe involved in the marige. This would efectivly leagalise guy marige. I think it is an issue of civil rights and I think homosexuals are no less people then anyoen else and shoudl be entiteled to the same rights, including marige. (<a href='http://www.somethingpositive.net/sp05162004.shtml' target='_blank'>"Gays Think They Are People and Want to Mary"</a>)<br><br>As for the seperation of church and state that si imposible. There must be soem laws reguarding relegion, regligous proporty, religous exposure, religous instatutions, ect. but not religous thought. The seperation was ment to keep the nation for legislating religous thought much like the King of England did at that time. In our early history there was quite an interply of church in our law that woudl stun meny of you. We have coem a long way form that time but some laws are necesary like those that concern the property rights of religous nsititutions, ore thsoe reguarding treatment in government cemitaries and such.<br><br>Whatever the government decides on the marige issue, it won't efet religous beliefs on the issue. I have always thought there to bea diference beteeen religouis marage and legal marige and I'm in favor of giveng them diferent names to reflect that. If youget a state and perfectly ecular marige (homo or hetero) it's still called maraige but I think it shoudl be called soemthign else. While somehtign liek teachign evolutin in the schools cannot be made without respect to religon. (If you dont alow crationism or evolutin then you arn't teaching much, if you alow one andn not the other you are giving a bias perspective, and if you teach both you are teachign religous belief, but there has tob e some laws reguarding what to teach), I cannot see how the governments stance of legal marage woudl efect religion. That dosn;t mean that it can;t though; there could easly be soemthign I don;t see.<br><br>A lto fo people are ehter being cought up in the semantics or are hiding behind them for political suport. I pety the former and have no respect for the latter. I han't heard much but the ever popular sound bites on this issue and I have heard no legitimant argument agaisnt same sex unions, htough I have heared completly bogus arguments that tried to be legitiment (liek the one that stated that the bible was the orginator of the concept of marige). Taht dosn't meen that there dosn;t exist one and cultoral or religous arguments can be used. If one wanted to practise the Aztec beleif of using memers of neighboring tribes to sacrifice to your Gods, whiel beign a perfictly legit religous practice and acceptable in that anchient sosioty, for religous and cultural reasons it is not in ours. That's an extreem example but demonstrats that posability.<br><br>Oh yeah, BSP: Gays want to get some of the numorus legal benifits that comes wiht a secular marige lisense and I can't blame them. They can be quite considerable. Soem also have more persoanl and symbolic reasons for wanting a seecular marige certificite thoguh I dont; think they're very symbolic myself my personal opinions are not the same as everybody elses.

[Softpaw]

<!--QuoteBegin-norsenerd+May 19 2004, 08:11 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (norsenerd @ May 19 2004, 08:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Oh yeah, BSP: Gays want to get some of the numorus legal benifits that comes wiht a secular marige lisense and I can't blame them. They can be quite considerable. Soem also have more persoanl and symbolic reasons for wanting a seecular marige certificite thoguh I dont; think they're very symbolic myself my personal opinions are not the same as everybody elses. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> Norsenerd speaks the truth, in the US there are over 1,019 benefits and privileges reserved solely for married couples, most of which are unattainable by an unmarried/same-sex couple no matter how many legal documents that couple prepares. A lot of folks who are against marriage equality say "If they want the legal rights of marriage, they can just go to an attorney and have the proper contracts drawn up". That doesn't work in cases of social security, hospital visitation, joint custody of children (depending on the state), and hundreds of other items. Not to mention the obscene cost of hiring a lawyer for all that work is usually more than a lot of couples can afford. Heterosexual couples get all these benefits automatically just by obtaining a marriage license, whereas a homosexual couple has to wade through the entanglements of the legal system for months, and STILL can't get a lot of the important marital rights.

[Muninn]

<!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> The second half of this statement is completely unrelated to the first part. Saying something must be changed because other things unrelated to it have changed is a very weak argument. That is like saying that because the neighborhood suddenly replaces their cars with SUVs, I should not stick to using paint to color my home.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Sorry Tavis i disagree here and i think you read this and quite a lot of the other points too much, missed their implied effect or read it wrong. I disagree on the part that the two are unrelated, not the forceful changing. The reasons working against interacial marriages and homosexual marriages are almost exactly the same.

[Tavis]

<!--QuoteBegin-Jacob+May 19 2004, 12:54 PM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (Jacob @ May 19 2004, 12:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> The second half of this statement is completely unrelated to the first part. Saying something must be changed because other things unrelated to it have changed is a very weak argument. That is like saying that because the neighborhood suddenly replaces their cars with SUVs, I should not stick to using paint to color my home.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Sorry Tavis i disagree here and i think you read this and quite a lot of the other points too much, missed their implied effect or read it wrong. I disagree on the part that the two are unrelated, not the forceful changing. The reasons working against interacial marriages and homosexual marriages are almost exactly the same. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> Missed the implied effect? No, I don't believe I missed the implied effect at all. The implied effect of every item in this list is to try to dismiss arguments used by people opposed to legalizing same-sex marriages by incorrectly rephrasing statements, introducing logical fallacies, and making statements that are just plain wrong. You know the statement, "Garbage In, Garbage Out?" This list pours garbage into the debate in an effort to discredit those who disagree with you and to dishonestly convince readers that their objections have absolutely no merit.<br><br>Since you pointed out my response to #5, I might as well try to point it out to you again.<br><!--QuoteBegin-again...+--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (again...)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> 5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasnt changed at all; women are property, blacks cant marry whites, and divorce is illegal.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>The first statement, "Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time" and "Heterosexual marriage hasnt changed at all." That is given.. The statements in the second half are intended to be used as counterexamples, by providing the statements "women are property", "blacks can't marry whites", and "divorce is illegal." These statements were carefully chosen because most of us are aware that they are false, but may have once been the case. So, by providing the counterexamples, this statement turns from "Marriage has not changed" to "Marriage has changed."<br><br>Acknowledging the changing of one aspect of marriage does not mean that just any change proposed must be changed. It simply means that it <i>can</i> be changed. If you were to apply this argument towards supporting any change in marriage, it would not be any stronger than it would be if it were used against such change. If you wish to support same-sex marriages with the contents of that list, you have no case. Failing to argue against something is not the same as arguing for it.

[The_Sparrow_]

I don't think that list is supporting gay marriage, it's just poking fun at the rediculous arguments against it.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> 1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> On the other hand arsenic is natural, but sufficient exposure is lethal. The argument of whether something is good for a person or not based on whether it is natural or not clearly cannot be used in favor for either side of the debate.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>Exactly, the argument makes no sense, therefore it cannot be used against gay marriage, and yes I've seen people use that argument.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> 2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people cant legally get married because the world needs more children.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> That is not why heterosexual marriages are valid or legal. As for the legality of any type of marriage, that's for the legal system to determine.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>Oh course, but you will find plenty of people around the place that seem to think gay marriages shouldn't be valid because they can't produce children (I've seen at least two of these people) by their own reasoning they should believe old people and infertile people shouldn't get marriage, of course they never say that (or believe it).<br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> 5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasnt changed at all; women are property, blacks cant marry whites, and divorce is illegal.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> The second half of this statement is completely unrelated to the first part. Saying something must be changed because other things unrelated to it have changed is a very weak argument. That is like saying that because the neighborhood suddenly replaces their cars with SUVs, I should not stick to using paint to color my home.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>It's not saying it must change, it's saying it's stupid to think that it hasn't changed in the past (as some anti-gay marriage people often think, again, I've run into people like this).<br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> 8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>I'm going to have to attack this point myself (even though I think it's the funniest thing on that list). Height is purely genetic, enviroment can't realisticly effect it. Homosexuality on the other had is likely a combination of genes and enviroment.<br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> 9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br><!--QuoteBegin--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> </td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> "Opening the door to all kinds of crazy behavior" is known as the slippery-slope argument. It is an attempt to discredit a premise by trying to blow it out of proportion until the outsome is completely absurd. Because this statement does not paint an accurate representation of either side, it must be thrown out.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br><br>It's no exageration, I've seen people argue that gay marriage will open the door to all sorts of rediculous things.<br><br>

[Sakie]

dude let them get married who gives a damn?

[Burning Sheep Productions]

<!--QuoteBegin-FelixLockhart+May 20 2004, 04:09 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (FelixLockhart @ May 20 2004, 04:09 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> <!--QuoteBegin-norsenerd+May 19 2004, 08:11 AM--> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'><b>Quote:</b> (norsenerd @ May 19 2004, 08:11 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Oh yeah, BSP:  Gays want to get some of the numorus legal benifits that comes wiht a secular marige lisense and I can't blame them.  They can be quite considerable.  Soem also have more persoanl and symbolic reasons for wanting a seecular marige certificite thoguh I dont; think they're very symbolic myself my personal opinions are not the same as everybody elses. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br>Norsenerd speaks the truth, in the US there are over 1,019 benefits and privileges reserved solely for married couples, most of which are unattainable by an unmarried/same-sex couple no matter how many legal documents that couple prepares. A lot of folks who are against marriage equality say "If they want the legal rights of marriage, they can just go to an attorney and have the proper contracts drawn up". That doesn't work in cases of social security, hospital visitation, joint custody of children (depending on the state), and hundreds of other items. Not to mention the obscene cost of hiring a lawyer for all that work is usually more than a lot of couples can afford. Heterosexual couples get all these benefits automatically just by obtaining a marriage license, whereas a homosexual couple has to wade through the entanglements of the legal system for months, and STILL can't get a lot of the important marital rights. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table> <!--QuoteEEnd--><br> Sorry, what I meant was, do you think being gay is a good thing?

[Dr. Dos]

Heterosexuals have the advantage of being able to reproduce.<br><br>Homosexuals have the advantage that they don't.<br><br>Reading that looks bad, but I mean in the sense that the world is overpopulated, not in "oh if gay couples had children they'd raise them gay too".

[Muninn]

I too have heard the 9th point used by others. Once gay marriage is legalized, Mormons will push further for rights too they said. The slippery slope argument as Tavis said. This reason was poking fun AT that argument, not trying to use IT as a means to prove its point.

[Tavis]

Ah, but when it pokes fun at a statement to discredit what that statement supports, it has the effect of fooling people into believing the opposite is the case. The fact is, the consequences are unknown, and while something may not fall all the way down some slippery slope, there will be consequences some people will not find favorable. That is the case with any decision.