Gay Marriage

[Rogue Nine]

With the recent passing of Proposition 8 in California and similar referendums around the country making same-sex marriage null and void, I thought a little food for thought would be good at this time.

 

Keith Olbermann's take on it.

 

Now, despite what you may think of Olbermann or MSNBC or whoever, what he said bears merit. I thought it was a poignant, passionate and well-reasoned speech on an institution that has both very little meaning and so yet much meaning in the world today.

[Achilles]

I watched that the other night and had much the same reaction, Niner. The bad news is that we just aren't quite there yet. The good news is that judicial review will most likely smack down all the amendments before they can be passed and that younger voters will shift the zeitgeist in the not-too-distant future.

[Jeff]

I found this article and thought it was of interest.

 

WordPerfect co-founder donates $1 million towards gay marriage ban

 

It just amazes me that people have such a problem with something that does not affect them that they are willing to donate that much money to get it banned.

[tk102]

http://www.couragecampaign.org/page/content/dontdivorce

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Wow, look at the forum risen from the dead!

 

It just amazes me that people have such a problem with something that does not affect them that they are willing to donate that much money to get it banned.

I suppose that if you really believe all this hokum that this time, this time it's for real, this time the removal of a silly restriction on marriage will bring society crashing down... then one million dollars is nothing.

 

My view... as tough as this must be for rational people in California, the gays most of all, to handle, the pro-gay marriage side is winning the war. Given this, battles don't really matter much.

[Vikinor]

I used to not care since this did not directly affect me. Being raised Catholic, I was just fed certain views and beliefs and agreed with them.

 

The I guess I had a personal "epiphany" when I was about 16 or 17. I just began to think and question things.

 

I remember asking a priest about certain issues. Gay marriage being one of them. He said "The Church isn't anti gay. We don't believe that they shouldn't be allowed to be together, just that they don't call it marriage."

 

I understand this viewpoint, and I honestly kind of agree with it. Let the religions get to keep to their ways. However it seems that a key factor that is being overlooked is the separation of Church and State. It seems that most people who are against gay marriage are against it because it is their religions view. Therefore, those arguements should be irrelevant.

 

Besides, is marriage even all that religious anymore? I know some people still like to have traditional weddings in churches, but others can go out to vegas and get married in minutes.

 

I'm going to have to say that I agree 100% with what Olbermann said.

[SkinWalker]

There really is no evidence that marriage is religious in origin. Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary since all cultures have one or more forms of marriage. If this were an institution respective only to religious cults and not to secular culture, then we would not expect to see such a common practice existing in cults that have such diverse and often contradictory qualities and characteristics from each other.

 

We see rituals and superstitions like communions and sweat lodges that are diverse and different, but the commonality of marriage suggests, with little reason to think otherwise, that this is a human social function and one that appears to exist in form elsewhere in the animal kingdom. In short, marriage is an evolutionary advantage, even same-sex marriage.

[GarfieldJL]

Must disagree, if you open the marriage thing for same-sex couples, you open it for polygamy, marrying children, etc.

 

I'm for marriage being between one man and one woman.

 

Call it something else for same-sex couples.

[SkinWalker]

That's a fallacious -very fallacious argument. Indeed, I'd go so far as to say its uninformed. In no way does it follow that polygamy or child-marriage would be acceptable if consenting adults of the same sex were allowed to marry.

 

If you're opposed to same-sex marriage there is a simple fix: don't marry someone of the same-sex. If your neighbors choose to marry, it in absolutely no way has any real affect on you. Not in any reality that we exist in.

 

If religions want to marry, perhaps they should call it something else.

[GarfieldJL]

No, it would allow it, because if same-sex marriages are allowed, you can argue for the others as well because you are discriminating against someone's religion.

 

It would be a classic 1st Amendment argument.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

No, it would allow it, because if same-sex marriages are allowed, you can argue for the others as well because you are discriminating against someone's religion.

 

It would be a classic 1st Amendment argument.

kids can't legally consent to sex or marriage.

[SkinWalker]

No, it would allow it, because if same-sex marriages are allowed, you can argue for the others as well because you are discriminating against someone's religion.

 

It would be a classic 1st Amendment argument.

 

Please feel free to create a syllogistic argument or set of premises that end in a conclusion to show this. Until then, it is fallacy and doesn't follow. Such arguments are generated out of fear and ignorance, but get perpetuated by a lack of critical thought. My only hope is that you'll take this opportunity to work out the argument -if you can show a set of premises or even a syllogism that ends in your conclusion, I'll revise my own position.

[GarfieldJL]

Oh that's easy Example:

 

We want to get married but we're not allowed to because we want more than one wife or more than one husband, because they allow marriage between people of the same-gender. It's against the 1st Amendment, freedom of Religion. And there are some radical religious sects that can use this argument.

[SkinWalker]

Oh that's easy Example:

 

We want to get married but we're not allowed to because we want more than one wife or more than one husband, because they allow marriage between people of the same-gender. It's against the 1st Amendment, freedom of Religion. And there are some radical religious sects that can use this argument.

 

I'm afraid I don't see how the allowance of marriage between people of the same sex can cause anyone to want more than one wife or husband, which is what your first sentence seems to assert. Let me see if I have the premises correct:

 

Because same-sex couples are allowed to marry, others will want to have multiple spouses or child spouses.

 

You bring up First Amendment rights and freedom of religion, but neither of these really have no bearing on the same-sex marriage issue in the way you are suggesting. There simply is no good reason to disallow same-sex marriage without invoking superstition. There are, however, many good reasons (perhaps for a different thread) to not permit marriage with children and multiple spouses.

 

But you haven't demonstrated how the conclusion follows the premises, the conclusion being child marriages/polygamy will result from the allowance of same-sex marriages. Indeed, in states and nations where same-sex marriage is lawful, there seem to be no significant (if any) public demands for marriage with children or polygamy. Therefore your conclusions are false and your arguments fallacious.

 

My intent in pointing this out isn't to be mean but, rather, to show how application of critical thought and formulating an argument is important to civil discourse and governing.

[GarfieldJL]

I'm afraid I don't see how the allowance of marriage between people of the same sex can cause anyone to want more than one wife or husband, which is what your first sentence seems to assert. Let me see if I have the premises correct:

 

If you say one group is able to redefine the definition of marriage but you say no to the others you have a 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment situation on your hands.

 

Freedom of religion + the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment. I'm not necessarily saying those that want same-sex marriage particularly want multiple spouses or child spouses, but people haven't thought through the implications.

 

But you haven't demonstrated how the conclusion follows the premises, the conclusion being child marriages/polygamy will result from the allowance of same-sex marriages. Indeed, in states and nations where same-sex marriage is lawful, there seem to be no significant (if any) public demands for marriage with children or polygamy. Therefore your conclusions are false and your arguments fallacious.

 

Actually, I'm looking at another group of people that can capitalize on the same-sex marriage being allowed, and that is the polygamists. As marriage stands now, you can argue it is for merely the union of a couple to have children between one man and one woman. Once you change that you open this up for other groups.

 

My intent in pointing this out isn't to be mean but, rather, to show how application of critical thought and formulating an argument is important to civil discourse and governing.

 

So is looking at what would happen if it is allowed and the consequences of what would happen. I have no problem with some other term being come up with that would be for a same-sex couple that gives them the same rights and stuff as though it was marriage, the issue is a matter between them and God, but they don't have to call it marriage. (Though still you could end up with the same problems going that route as well)

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Slippery slope. It's like saying that blacks and women shouldn't be allowed to vote, because then that opens for kids and animals given the right to vote, too.

 

If you say one group is able to redefine the definition of marriage but you say no to the others you have a 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment situation on your hands.

Does the US have a 1st Amendment and 14th Amendment situation on its hands for redefining marriage to

• Allow divorce.
  
• Disallow spousal rape.
  
• Allow inter-racial marriage?
  
• Allow inter-religious (is that a word?) marriage?
  
• Allow marriage between social classes?
  
• Disallow arranged marriage and instead make marriage something you agree upon for love, not for the family economy (a major shift, if you were not aware)?

The words 'redefining marriage' makes it sound as if marriage is some sort of constant. It isn't. It's been tweaked and redefined so many times throughout history that you can't possibly point to any given state and say that 'this is traditional marriage'.

 

As long as you are a consenting adult (see, no children allowed in), feel free to marry another consenting adult. You can try to equivocate gay marriage with polygamy and child marriages all you want, but it won't fly, as we know they're different things altogether.

[SkinWalker]

The most significant reason to simply just discard the argument that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy or pedophilia is by asking has it had this effect in other nations where same-sex marriage is allowed. The answer is "no."

 

The argument is this:

 

If same sex marriage is permitted, polygamy and pedophilia are next.

Same sex marriage is permitted in [insert nation].

[insert nation] now allows polygamy and pedophilia.

 

That argument doesn't hold up regardless of which nation that permits same-sex marriage is inserted above. It is completely and utterly fallacious and ignorant. Sorry, but it is.

[Astor]

The most significant reason to simply just discard the argument that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy or pedophilia is by asking has it had this effect in other nations where same-sex marriage is allowed. The answer is "no."

 

As a resident of a nation that allows said 'unions' (Civil Partnerships, as they're called, but it's marriage), I can confirm that polygamy/paedophilia doesn't happen (hmmm... having something to do with them both being illegal throughout most of the civilised world) as a direct result of same-sex unions.

 

There were a lot of people complaining when it was allowed here, which I think is why it was changed to 'Civil Partnership' - although the idea that the word marriage should only refer to those of opposite sexes is frankly ludicrous in this day and age - it's no-one else's business except the people involved.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I have no problem with some other term being come up with that would be for a same-sex couple that gives them the same rights and stuff as though it was marriage, the issue is a matter between them and God, but they don't have to call it marriage.

Why not? If inter-racial couples can, why not same-sex couples? Both redefine marriage, have faced heavy opposition from Christians, and have been accused of leading to worse things (ie. "we can't allow inter-racial marriage, because then gay marriage is next").

[SkinWalker]

For those opposed to same sex marriage, here's my question:

 

Given that the argument above about polygamy and pedophilia have been squashed and shown to be irrelevant, how then does the marriage of two people of the same sex actually affect you? What real, tangible influence does it have on your own day-to-day life or ability to live even in the same neighborhood?

[Astor]

Given that the argument above about polygamy and pedophilia have been squashed and shown to be irrelevant, how then does the marriage of two people of the same sex actually affect you? What real, tangible influence does it have on your own day-to-day life or ability to live even in the same neighborhood?

 

This might be a purely British sensibility, but those who I have spoken with who are vehemently opposed to it often seem to have a 'not in my neighbourhood' mentality - that it doesn't matter who the people are, it's simply that it's taboo.

 

And then there were those who have an irrational fear that once started, it'll 'Gay up the country' (actual words).

[Vikinor]

Oh yeah. I'm not opposed to gay marriage, but I definatley don't want to see it in person. It may be homophobic, but I don't care. I often feel sick when I see two males kiss.

 

The way I see it, you do what you want to, but I don't have to be a part of it.

[Volar the Healer]

If you truly believe so-called "gay marriage" does not affect me or the rest of society, then why are you pushing so hard for it to be recognized? Why not just invent some other term for it, and leave the term "marriage" alone?

 

What gives you the right to redefine the term marriage to include something it has never included before? THAT looks like an attack upon the traditional institution of marriage - which, of course, it is.

 

Homosexuality is judged to be unacceptable by the overwhelming percentage of the American population, the American Medical Association, The American Psychiactric Association, and every honest religion. This should be obvious even through the media bias by simply looking at the votes. The general election before last every pro-homosexual bill floated failed...every one. This last general election every anti-homosexual bill passed..every one. Don't believe your own propoganda.

 

We don't care what you do in you home (Please stop saying we do.) We DO care what you're doing in our public schools with our children. Stop demanding legitimacy for the illigitimate. Homosexuality is wrong. What you, as an adult do, is your own business. But, children should not be exposed to such things.

 

Now keep your vile affections off my marriage!

[Astor]

If you truly believe so-called "gay marriage" does not affect me or the rest of society, then why are you pushing so hard for it to be recognized? Why not just invent some other term for it, and leave the term "marriage" alone?[/Quote]

 

As I mentioned above, the accepted term is 'Civil Partnership' - but for many, even that's unacceptable.

 

What gives you the right to redefine the term marriage to include something it has never included before? THAT looks like an attack upon the traditional institution of marriage - which, of course, it is.[/Quote]

 

It was also 'traditional' for marriage to include only same-colour couples, and forced the woman to stay at home, and be subservient to the male. That changed, and i'm sure, as it evolved, there were those who claimed they were attacks on the 'traditional institution'.

 

Trurth is, there isn't much 'tradition' left in marriage.

 

Homosexuality is judged to be unacceptable by the overwhelming percentage of the American population, the American Medical Association, The American Psychiactric Association, and every honest religion.[/Quote]

 

And who appointed them Judge of what is 'acceptable'?

 

We don't care what you do in you home (Please stop saying we do.) We DO care what you're doing in our public schools with our children.[/Quote]

 

I don't know enough about teaching in American schools, so someone indulge me - is gay marriage taught there?

 

Homosexuality is wrong.

 

In your opinion, of course (and i'm sure a few others). I myself am heterosexual, but I see no problem in what is ultimately the personal choice of the individual.

 

But, children should not be exposed to such things.

 

Who is on about exposing children to it?

[Ray Jones]

Now keep your vile affections off my marriage!

This is a place for open minded discussion of viewpoints and thoughts, and as it has been said in Kavar's, if you don't feel comfortable about this then please leave it to those who do.