Gay marriage: Why not?

[TheFaithfulStone]

BD your defense of your views is incoherent and meaningless. You still have not given ONE reason why gay people should not have access to the same benefits as straight people. NOT ONE. You've got a nice circular logic going there, and of course your own (tacit) assertion that gay people are really quite icky, but beyond that - not a damn thing.

 

While some may have easier access to it than others, there is still equal access to it for all.

 

That's just a dirty semantic trick and you know it. Does everyone have the "privilege" to marry who they love? No they do not. You're switching the definition of equal midway through the sentence! When you say marriage for you you mean - "The benefits of spending the rest of my life with someone I am sexually attracted to." But then halfway through you switch it to mean "as long as everyone else thinks it's okay." That is CLEARLY the logic of anti-miscegenation laws.

 

One more thing. In this case, the "majority opinion" is irrelevant. If you had taken a poll in 1948 as to whether blacks should be allowed to marry whites, you'd probably have gotten a response in the negative. The vote is irrelevant. And in any case, for the a great portion of human history, for a great portion of people your monogamous, lifelong, sexual marriage to your wife would be considered an aberration.

 

You don't care if your view point is fair? What about moral and in keeping with the principles of the United States constitution? Your personal viewpoint can be whatever the heck you want it to be, but as we've been over before, when it comes down to legal matters your feelings don't matter.

 

So... I give you a challenge. In two sentences or less, answer this question. Why should gay people not be allowed to get married?

 

The answer to the opposite question (why should they?) is - "Because it creates a "specialness" among one group of people with an inborn characteristic to not allow it."

 

So come on, cough up an answer. The argument for is very,very simple.

 

TFS

[TheBigDog]

I do not have a problem with domestic partnership laws, or civil unions. I want those laws to give people the opportunity to feel some joy and comfort in their lives that they do not have today. And if they mirror the rights of marriage I am not bothered by that either.

When I become a minority can I have my word back?

 

Bill

[Nootropic]

 

But this is how I have voted and will continue to vote. A marriage is between a man and a woman. That is what it has meant, and that is what it should continue to mean. To say that I am married carries with it information. It means that I as huband am a man married to a woman as wife. And that we as husband and wife are mother and father to our children. Just as a gay person can have pride in themselves and their life, and choose to publicly be recognized as gay without fear of abuse - I too am allowed to have pride. When I say I am married it tells people who I am. It is inherently traditional and heterosexual. I do not have a partner, I have a wife. My wife has a husband. I am not homophobic, but I feel there should be distinction in the semantics of my relationship as being inherently different than a same sex relationship. I am trying to preserve the definition of a word that describes the highest acheivments of my life: My marriage; my fatherhood; my commitment to both.

 

 

 

Bill

 

 

There is nothing inherently homophobic about this position, but wherein lies the problem with changing this definition? Yes, it has been this way for a long time, but change has always happened. Our definitions of the everything is constantly changing, so why must this remain a constant? As TFS mentioned, WHY?

[TheFaithfulStone]

So you have no problem with gay people getting married as long as they call it something else?

 

So gay people get borticulated, and straight people get married, and the only difference is that borticulated people are gay?

 

In any case, the reason there's so much misunderstanding in this thread is because you're arguing a different question than everyone else. You say "I'm against gay marriage," and everyone jumps on you because the position is untenable.

 

Then you say - "But I'm okay with gay borticulation. And borticulation is exactly the same as marriage."

 

I gotta tell you, that's a pretty nuanced position - and frankly, I find it a little ... odd. But I suppose it's consistent.

 

TFS

[InfiniteNow]

I am glad to see that there really do not seem to be any valid reasons why gay marriage should be prevented, but simultaneously disheartened that it remains illegal despite the clear lack of supporting reasons.

 

Thanks again for the input you have all shared here. Clearly this is a hot potato of a topic, and most everyone remained very cool and collected. That's tough to do, and I applaud everyone who has taken part.

 

 

Cheers. :D