Gay marriage: Why not?

[Edella]

Well it seems the overwhelming majority of posters see no reason to deny marriage to same sex couples. Given the fact that the average poster on Hypography is of above average intelligence and more informed than most (c'mon we know it's true:) ),maybe we can conclude that there is good evidence current laws are flawed or irrational.

 

...since my best friend really IS gay

I also have close gay friends; it would be interesting to see what people with gay friends or family members think about this issue compared with those who have no gay friends or family.

 

red-blooded heterosexual white male, Christian BIGOTRY

Bigotry of many other flavors as well.

 

In fact people pay good money to watch it! ($7.99 on pay-per-view last I looked.)

Is that a special one time offer? Good deal.

 

BTW icky is the perfect word.Wouldn't have thought of using it.

[celtfaery]

I'm going to throw my hat in here. I firmly believe that homosexuality is an inborn trait, not something you choose. My biggest argument for this is hermaphrodism and transgendered individuals. If the developing fetus can have these obviously physical characteristics (in hermaphrodites), then why is it so hard to believe that homosexuality is just another difference on the spectrum? As for transgendered individuals, most believe from early childhood that they are born into the wrong body. There has been a study of transgendered brains that indicates that the corpus collosum in transgendered males is extraordinarily similar to a female's brain. I can send a note with the study for anyone who is interested, I'm too much of a newbie to post the URL. As far as marriage goes, who does it hurt? Most gay couples who choose to marry are generally stable and well adjusted individuals. Going back to TheBigDog's argument that it is going to cost more :) in insurance, may be somewhat unfounded. Homosexual individuals, being "single", still have insurance that they pay for. I am certain that insurance companies have some kind of formula to work out the percentage of homosexuals and their medical needs.

The question remains...is it your impulse or your actions that determine your sexuality? Yes, there are individuals who have violent tendencies or are pedophiles. However, this does not correlate to the gay marriage issue. In the case of violence or pedophilia, there is inherently a victim. Adult homosexuals are in a relationship of their own free will, and it does not damage or interfere with anyone else's life.

I say why not? If homosexual couples want to enjoy the same joys of marriage, then who am I to judge?

Ok, I'm done now :D

Shannon

[Zythryn]

I've read all seven pages of this thread.

 

Let's sum up for those just joining us.

 

The only answer that remains is because gay people are icky.

 

TFS, I don't think this is quite accurate.

From the discussions in this thread, the impression I get from most of the posters arguing against the rights of homosexuals is not because they think the people are icky. It is because they feel the actions are icky.

 

While I probably also fall into the group seeing some of the actions performed by homosexuals as 'icky' I also don't feel that my discomfort with their lifestyle is a reason for me to deny them the right to marry one another.

 

Bill, you are speaking pure igorance here and based on that I will say you are ignorant person.

 

Although Bill and I are on opposite sides of this discussion, I STRONGLY disagree with this statement.

 

I do believe Bill's argument currently has only one rational argument. I don't think it is very good, but it is rational. That being that the law should reflect societal norms and that one such norm is that marraige is between a man and a woman ONLY.

 

Again, I disagree with this (after all, at one point in many states it was illegal for people of different races to marry).

[EWright]

Although Bill and I are on opposite sides of this discussion, I STRONGLY disagree with this statement.

 

I do believe Bill's argument currently has only one rational argument. I don't think it is very good, but it is rational. That being that the law should reflect societal norms and that one such norm is that marraige is between a man and a woman ONLY.

 

The dictionary defines rational as: 1. Having the ability to reason. 2. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior.

 

I don't believe one makes rational decisions when they are close-minded, judgemental and overly-opinionated in their "reasoning". You do not address the points I made in my post as a whole whatsoever.

[TheBigDog]

Bill, you are speaking pure igorance here and based on that I will say you are ignorant person. Personally, I don't fully support gay marriage, but I am open-minded enough to consider reasons for or against it and then to make a decision based on that. In my opinion, you are not open-minded enough to deserve any more of a say on the matter than you feel gays are deservant of marriage.

 

For someone to have a valid opinion, I think it is important for them to have enough of an open mind to make rational decisions. You have shown through ignorant dialogue that you are not open-minded or rational; you are close-minded and prejudice. I am not being judgemental and have no ill-will agianst you; I am just stating my interpretation based on the evidence that you've laid out for us. You most certainly have no basis for, or right to, define homosexuality as the act of sex with, as opposed to the attraction to, someone of the same sex. You've not walked in their shoes to know.

 

Furthermore, your post on increased health benefits to support persons of the homosexual lifestyle is blatently prejudice for the fact that you make the presumtion that MARRIED homosexuals will be out sleeping with hoards of other homosexuals as opposed to honoring the sanctity of their marriage. The gays (and hetros) that are out whoring around and spreading communicable diseases are costing health care companies and those like yourself making contributions to those companies, whether marriage is in place or not.

 

If you are going to look at the sexual act as immoral, you might want to look at hetrosexuals as well. Do you do nothing immoral? Do you not view porn, lust over various women, harbor hatred toward some groups of people, have you abused drugs or alcohol or perhaps even persons close to you? There is plenty of immorality in the world, sexual and otherwise no matter what group you belong to. Your argument against gay marraige is insufficient, so either step up to the plate with a stronger and more valid argument or ST#U and stop rehashing the same tired trash.

Where did I ever say that the sexual act was immoral? All I ever said was that it was a personal choice. It is also a leap for you to presume you understand the impulses I may have that I choose to ignore versus those that I choose to act upon. Other than that, I have thick skin.

 

If you look at my argument I am saying that the gay issue is just a front. Those arguing in favor of gay marriage try to guilt those against it by calling them homophobes, as you have done to me. From the pro side on this thread there has been a broad rejection of any argument - tradition is out, law is out, money is out, statistics are out. The argument for this change begins with homosexuals in love and why don't they get the same rights as other individuals? But when pressed it turns into any two (or more) people who want to share such benefits - but the law can still prevent crimes (whatever those are allowed to be I do not know).

 

By the definition of the words "sharing benefits" is different than "marriage". If the goal is the sharing of benefits then there are many vailid appoaches to that other than changing the definition of marriage. Why must the tradition of marriage be changed? And yes, marriage has its problems, but so does every human venture. And some of us take it more seriously than others. If the tradition as an argument is invalid, why must we change the tradition to be more inclusive? If it is not important, why do more people want in?

 

This site would be very boring if we all just held hands and sang to each other. Please do me the justice of reading what I am saying without reading into it what is not there.

 

And as for my definition of "gay", I am sticking with it. Virgins are just spectators. They are not players. You can wear the uniform and cheer, but you are not a player until you take the field. Has that statement hurt anyone?

 

Bill

[TheFaithfulStone]

TFS, I don't think this is quite accurate.

From the discussions in this thread, the impression I get from most of the posters arguing against the rights of homosexuals is not because they think the people are icky. It is because they feel the actions are icky.

 

While I probably also fall into the group seeing some of the actions performed by homosexuals as 'icky' I also don't feel that my discomfort with their lifestyle is a reason for me to deny them the right to marry one another.

 

Fair enough. Sounds good. I agree.

 

The argument for this change begins with homosexuals in love and why don't they get the same rights as other individuals? But when pressed it turns into any two (or more) people who want to share such benefits - but the law can still prevent crimes (whatever those are allowed to be I do not know).

 

The argument not only begins there it ends there. Why NOT? Do you think straight people don't sometimes get married for the economic benefits? The phrase "marriage of convenience" applied to straight marriages long before it applied to anything else.

 

So that's the only question. Why SHOULDN'T class of citizens X have the same rights and privileges of class of citizens Y? (That is, to pursue their happiness by sharing their life with someone they care about, and yes, also to get involved in bad marriages...)

 

Here is the rub, there is only one choice.

1) Being homosexual is part of the human condition, and therefore gays should not be denied rights.

2) Being homosexual makes you pervert and less worthy of rights and respect.

 

If you accept 1, then you cannot ethically and consistently be against gay civil unions, or whatever. You don't have to call it marriage if it makes you squeamish, but a rose by any other name...

 

Therefore your position must be 2.

 

Given that your evidence for being gay is "a choice" is shoddy at best, and hateful and bigoted at worst, I would like to you explain how you can hold position two.

 

TFS

[Zythryn]

The dictionary defines rational as: 1. Having the ability to reason. 2. Consistent with or based on reason; logical: rational behavior.

 

I don't believe one makes rational decisions when they are close-minded, judgemental and overly-opinionated in their "reasoning". You do not address the points I made in my post as a whole whatsoever.

 

If you read the definition you just stated, I think you will see that Bill's argument that the current societal definition of marriage precludes homosexual marraige, and that the social definition should not be changed.

 

This on its own is rational. You and I may not agree with it, but just because we don't agree with it doesn't make it irrational.

 

I would counter it though that the current societal definition above is discriminatory. That allowing homosexuals to marry causes no one any damage, either individually or as a society.

 

Your second point is, in and of itself, irrational. Anyone is capable of making rational or irrational arguments.

If a hypothetical person is 'close minded' it doesn't mean they are incapable of making rational arguments. Likewise an open minded person, is also capable of making irrational arguments.

[TheFaithfulStone]

This on its own is rational. You and I may not agree with it, but just because we don't agree with it doesn't make it irrational.

 

It is not rational. (Well, it's not logical.) It contains an "appeal to authority" in the form of the authority of tradition.

 

TFS

[Erasmus00]

From the pro side on this thread there has been a broad rejection of any argument - tradition is out, law is out, money is out, statistics are out.

 

I think that your arguments have, in general, confused two different deffinitions of marriage. The first is the religious deffinition, involving loving and honoring, etc.

 

The second is the legal deffinition, which only has to do with two people who wish to recieve the legal benefits that come from marriage. You say "By the definition of the words "sharing benefits" is different than "marriage." " However, under the law, thats all that is implied.

 

Homosexuals ALREADY can enter in the religious deffinition of marriage. There are many churches that WILL marry gay people. While your personal interpretation of tradition is that it only applies to a man and a woman, there are ordained ministers of various faiths that disagree. On a church by church basis, these churches have decided to marry two men or two women.

 

The debate is NOT about homosexuals being able to go to a church and have a ceremony (they already can) the argument is about wether or not they should recieve the LEGAL benefits after they do. Remember, the legal deffinition of marriage only implies shared benefits, nothing more.

-Will

[TheBigDog]

You say "By the definition of the words "sharing benefits" is different than "marriage." " However, under the law, thats all that is implied.

At the time that all the US marriage laws were written the dictionary defined the word marriage as being between a man and a woman. Many still do, although there is a steady trend toward updating the definition to being between two people. The dictionary definition of the word in "marriage" at the time the laws were written is the absolute implication of the meaning of the law. Because the definition is being changed does not change the implication of the law that was written and passed.

 

I have made no argument against civil unions or any other type of contract that would give the same rights as a marriage. I am quite baffled by the way that people have reacted to my posts.

 

Bill

[TheFaithfulStone]

I have made no argument against civil unions or any other type of contract that would give the same rights as a marriage. I am quite baffled by the way that people have reacted to my posts.

 

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, why not call it a duck?

 

I seem to remember you arguing with Clay when he proposed getting rid of civil "marriage" entirely, and replacing it with civil unions. Church "marriages" would automatically imply a civil union, but not vice versa.

 

If there's no problem with that, then I agree, you've been misunderstood.

 

If I outlaw guns - but I still let you have a hollow tube which fires a projectile by means of an explosive chemical reaction - just so long as it's called a blunderbuss, what's the difference, really? But you know, whatever...

 

TFS

[Erasmus00]

I have made no argument against civil unions or any other type of contract that would give the same rights as a marriage.

 

My only problem with civil unions is that many states have used the concept to avoid the full faith and credit clause.

 

When Vermont passed its law in 2000 allowing for civil unions between same-sex couples, legislators in other states argued that (because the concept is superfluous to marriage) it didn't fall under the full faith and credit clause. Hence, unioned couples in Vermont couldn't move anywhere else, untill 2002 when New York passed a law recognizing civil unions from other jurisdictions.

 

If people are so concerned about the use of the word marriage (which is silly, given that the spirit of marriage is more about love, attraction and devotion then the gender of its participants) then fine, call them civil unions. But don't treat it under the law in anyway different from marriage.

-Will

[TheFaithfulStone]

Too bad I can't rep you again Will.

 

TFS

[Zythryn]

It is not rational. (Well, it's not logical.) It contains an "appeal to authority" in the form of the authority of tradition.

 

TFS

 

Hmmm, ok I stand corrected as to the logic part.

 

Is it irrational to argue using tradition?

 

I believe Bill commented that he liked C1ays definition, please correct me if I am wrong.

 

I had a discussion similar to this with a friend in Europe. He commented that part of the issue for the populace in the USA may be the fact that in the USA the civil marriage and religious marriage really have become synonymous. There is no difference in many people's eyes.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Sorry, it is "rational" in that it's self-consistent. That doesn't however mean it makes sense. I can argue that trykle is dyckle, and therefore dyckle is trykle all day, and it's rational but it's also nonsense.

 

I went back and read the thread, Bill didn't say he "liked" Clay's definition but was willing to entertain it as long as the contract didn't have to be honored it all states. Which of course, is kinda beside the point.

 

TFS

[TheBigDog]

Sorry, it is "rational" in that it's self-consistent. That doesn't however mean it makes sense. I can argue that trykle is dyckle, and therefore dyckle is trykle all day, and it's rational but it's also nonsense.

 

I went back and read the thread, Bill didn't say he "liked" Clay's definition but was willing to entertain it as long as the contract didn't have to be honored it all states. Which of course, is kinda beside the point.

 

TFS

I like the definition given by C1ay about letting the Churches define who they allow to marry. But I would protect the Churches right to refuse marriage on any basis they see fit.

Hmmm....

 

Bill

[EWright]

If you read the definition you just stated, I think you will see that Bill's argument that the current societal definition of marriage precludes homosexual marraige, and that the social definition should not be changed.

 

This on its own is rational. You and I may not agree with it, but just because we don't agree with it doesn't make it irrational.

 

I would counter it though that the current societal definition above is discriminatory. That allowing homosexuals to marry causes no one any damage, either individually or as a society.

 

Your second point is, in and of itself, irrational. Anyone is capable of making rational or irrational arguments.

If a hypothetical person is 'close minded' it doesn't mean they are incapable of making rational arguments. Likewise an open minded person, is also capable of making irrational arguments.

 

Yes, an close-minded person is *capable* of making rational decisions ONCE THEY CHOOSE TO OPEN THEIR MIND. Until then, they remain *capable* of making them but are not actively doing so. My position stands.