[Zsych]

I'd like to start a thread on both why people think that gay marriage should be allowed, and why people think it shouldn't.

I'll start with some basic stuff, on both sides so people can actually start saying something

Why it should:
Homosexual people are normally decent people, the act of homosexual sex seems to cause no immediate harm to either partner, or anyone else. Letting homosexuals be a little happier by formalizing their relationship in the same way as heterosexual couples, and attaining the status of being married might make them a little happier, and make them feel like they aren't being kept out of an experience that other people are allowed to have.

Why it shouldn't:
The exact meaning of marriage and the rituals/laws/responsibilities/expectations surrounding it have varied across time. Of late the concept of love has been heavily linked to it. Uptil the 1950s, according to surveys at the time, love wasn't the highest priority for people seeking to get married. It has been historically a joining of families, and men and women raising children so that the family would continue... that there was a decent chance of divorce was definitely not a common assumption in the past.

In my view, marriage was a useful social construct that led to people sticking together through thick and thin, having support, and raising children as well as they could, together.

Now its often considered a celebration of individual love as opposed to a binding agreement and joining of lives. Often enough when the passion dies, marriages are in trouble. Often enough children don't have both of their parents to contribute to their growth because one of them decides to leave.

Thus IMO, marriage is no longer fully serving the useful purpose it once did, because the view of it, and social expectations surrounding it have changed. Some people of course, still retain part of the old view point, thus making it still somewhat useful.

So what separates marriage from a civil union? A name? the underlying ideas - both past and present.

I'd say that if it should be denied for homosexuals, its because that further changes the concept of marriage to essentially just a written declaration of people's love for each other, and something that is no longer really a social construct that serves a useful purpose.

On the other hand... the definition has changed a lot as it is, and it no longer has much of the meaning it once did, so if it's changed a little further to accomodate some people so that they feel happier(while people who dislike the idea, feel less happy :P), I'm not sure it really makes a significant difference anymore.

[Synamon]

I stopped reading at the phrase "Homosexual people are normally decent people". The fact that you felt the need to qualify with the word "normally" made it pretty clear which side of this issue you are on.

There is an active thread on the
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, it's already been legalized in other countries.

[Storm]

	Originally Posted by Synamon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I stopped reading at the phrase "Homosexual people are normally decent people". The fact that you felt the need to qualify with the word "normally" made it pretty clear which side of this issue you are on.

To be fair, there are indecent people of all sexual orientations. But yes, go check out that other thread, it's quite comprehensive.

[rara avis]

Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Why it should: Homosexual people are normally decent people, the act of homosexual sex seems to cause no immediate harm to either partner, or anyone else. Letting homosexuals be a little happier by formalizing their relationship in the same way as heterosexual couples, and attaining the status of being married might make them a little happier, and make them feel like they aren't being kept out of an experience that other people are allowed to have.

While I suppose I agree with your "should" in spirit, I'd like to adjust it a bit to reflect the fact that this is not about who we think is decent and who isn't, or who's happy and who isn't, or what anyone feels.

It's about drawing lines based on just such arbitrary judgments, and using those judgments to exclude a group of free adult citizens from obtaining legal and social rights that are granted to the rest of society around them. That ain't right.

[Prunesquallor]

Originally Posted by rara avis To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

While I suppose I agree with your "should" in spirit, I'd like to adjust it a bit to reflect the fact that this is not about who we think is decent and who isn't, or who's happy and who isn't, or what anyone feels. It's about drawing lines based on just such arbitrary judgments, and using those judgments to exclude a group of free adult citizens from obtaining legal and social rights that are granted to the rest of society around them. That ain't right.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

	Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	On the other hand... the definition has changed a lot as it is, and it no longer has much of the meaning it once did, so if it's changed a little further to accomodate some people so that they feel happier(while people who dislike the idea, feel less happy :P), I'm not sure it really makes a significant difference anymore.

It makes a significant difference to people who are being denied their rights. I guess to bigots too, but somehow I don't care...someone who would feel much happier if others lost some of their rights and had a worse life has issues...

Look up the etymology and changing meanings of the word "nice." Read some Old English. Words change. This is normal. People just need to relax about it.

[Zsych]

You people are disrupting the entrance of the views I actually want to hear explained :P - I've never really heard a serious explanation of the conservative viewpoint, beyond homosexuality being called unnatural.

Also, I think this issue is entirely based on feelings. If it weren't, civil unions with perhaps some modifications would be considered fine and there wouldn't be this much fuss over putting a name to the thing... Also, rights are not something inherent to humanity, and marriage is not a part of nature, its a human construct. I also still say that it was in its past incarnation, something useful. Right now, I almost wonder why it exists at all.

@prune: Personally I consider the categorization and instant dismissal of bigots as you call them to be not much different from any other type of discrimination. You're not putting forth clear and useful criteria for judgement, by which these people are considered to be inferior to others, and less worthy of having their opinions heard. You're disregarding their views because they differ from yours, and you consider yourself superior (... perhaps :P )

[Prunesquallor]

Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You people are disrupting the entrance of the views I actually want to hear explained :P - I've never really heard a serious explanation of the conservative viewpoint, beyond homosexuality being called unnatural. Also, I think this issue is entirely based on feelings. If it weren't, civil unions with perhaps some modifications would be considered fine and there wouldn't be this much fuss over putting a name to the thing... Also, rights are not something inherent to humanity, and marriage is not a part of nature, its a human construct. I also still say that it was in its past incarnation, something useful. Right now, I almost wonder why it exists at all. @prune: Personally I consider the categorization and instant dismissal of bigots as you call them to be not much different from any other type of discrimination. You're not putting forth clear and useful criteria for judgement, by which these people are considered to be inferior to others, and less worthy of having their opinions heard. You're disregarding their views because they differ from yours, and you consider yourself superior (... perhaps :P )

Yeah, I've never heard a serious explanation of the conservative viewpoint either...
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


I have problems with people who think they're entitled to make themselves feel better by cutting down, making unhappy, or eliminating/restricting the rights of other people more than their own without any justification beyond "my personal belief system (which the people I'm victimising think is a load of crock) says that's wrong and these people shouldn't exist." If that's discrimination, than so be it - I admit it freely. I am bigoted against bigots. Oh well.

[rara avis]

Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You people are disrupting the entrance of the views I actually want to hear explained :P - I've never really heard a serious explanation of the conservative viewpoint, beyond homosexuality being called unnatural. Also, I think this issue is entirely based on feelings. If it weren't, civil unions with perhaps some modifications would be considered fine and there wouldn't be this much fuss over putting a name to the thing... Also, rights are not something inherent to humanity, and marriage is not a part of nature, its a human construct. I also still say that it was in its past incarnation, something useful. Right now, I almost wonder why it exists at all.

Yes, a good part of it must be feeling/sentiment based.

But I think the majority of it is about guardianship of and respect for traditional systems and social structures, which are not entirely incorrectly seen as the framework of our society. The view you're expressing above, regarding the dissolution of marriage, or the spirit of it, is exactly the type of trend the naysayers are trying to prevent.

When you say, "Who cares, it's a dead institution anyway" - that is fuel for them to pull harder in the other direction, that of conserving and fortifying the institution.

[Zsych]

@prune:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Yes. But if there's more logic underlying it, I want to hear it.

@rara avis:

	When you say, "Who cares, it's a dead institution anyway" - that is fuel for them to pull harder in the other direction, that of conserving and fortifying the institution.

Can't say I would mind if there was a social change that taught people to learn to live together and adapt, not focus on short term emotions and focus more on the long term. On some level the concept of people leaving their spouses, and not sticking around for their kids irritates me. I'm very old fashioned with regard to keeping your promises and fulfilling your responsibilities. I wouldn't consider "I'm not really happy with this" as sufficient reason to decide to run away. There is more to life than feelings.

[ATCGs]

Homosexual couples are receiving equal protection under the law - they have the ability to marry a person of the opposite sex, they simply don't choose to. Likewise, they have the ability to marry and receive all the tax benefits resulting from such a union. There is some scientific research that shows individuals can be 'cured' of homosexuality by undergoing therapy, so it is their choice not to exercise their equal rights.

Allowing homosexual couples to marry would undermine the foundation of american society, the family, by denigrating marriage itself. If we allow people to marry other people of the same sex, there is no reason not to extend the boundary even further beyond that, opening marriage and families up to dangerous situations which would be abhorrent to the american way of life.

Allowing couples to make medical decisions for one another isn't an issue of marriage, but of power of attorney.


Oh, i forgot one.... homosexuality is icky.

If you believe any of this... I have a used car to sell you.

aaand I'm gonna go take a shower now.

[Zsych]

Hmm... I think I've said this before, but I experimented once with using hypnosis to change my sexual orientation somewhat so I could see if I could be attracted to guys, and to see how hard it would be... wasn't exactly that hard, but then I was willing to allow it. Emotions and stuff like sexual orientation tend to not be absolute. Heck guys can get aroused by cool cars :P

The whole problem with the argument of opening marriages to stuff people might not want, is that marriages are already practically open to almost anything. A friend of mine has an open marriage, where both partners are accepted as being allowed to have sex with other people outside the marriage.. without the spouse really needing to know or approve.

[Latro]

If there are any kind of civil rights associated with marriage, it cannot be denied to any group of individuals by an arbitrary basis like sexual orientation. I really doubt anyone disagrees with me here, and if someone does, this is profoundly contrary to even our most basic ideals in this country. This implies one of two conclusions: the civil rights associated with marriage should be bestowed upon homosexuals, or the civil rights associated with marriage should no longer exist (and thus marriage should be made into a non-civil institution). I am of the latter persuasion.

[JustMel]

Let me say it this way:

I don't give a fuck who gets married and who doesn't. If the religious ideal of marriage means that much to you and your religion doesn't allow gay marriage and you want to get married then you have a problem.

Otherwise it's a legal piece of paper and anyone who is of legal age and wants to be considered "legally married" for whatever reason should be allowed to get married.

If I hear one more idiot say that allowing gay couples to legally marry lessens the moral structure of society one more time I think I'll punch them in the face. The "moral structure" of the world in general and the US in particular has been in decline LONG before this became an issue and allowing people who love and respect one another to get married can only be good for the "structure".

I would rather my children be exposed to a loving gay couple than to the heterosexual couple down the street who are legally married who like to get drunk and beat the shit out of each other every Saturday night.

Seriously, people really, really need to learn to live and let live. As long as the couple isn't living in your morally righteous house and trying to sleep between you and your morally righteous spouse it's really not any of your fucking business.





JustMel added to this post, 1 minutes and 5 seconds later...

Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If there are any kind of civil rights associated with marriage, it cannot be denied to any group of individuals by an arbitrary basis like sexual orientation. I really doubt anyone disagrees with me here, and if someone does, this is profoundly contrary to even our most basic ideals in this country. This implies one of two conclusions: the civil rights associated with marriage should be bestowed upon homosexuals, or the civil rights associated with marriage should no longer exist (and thus marriage should be made into a non-civil institution). I am of the latter persuasion.

I finally have something to TOTALLY agree with you on. I have to go see if the earth stopped spinning on its axis... BRB.

[ATCGs]

Originally Posted by Latro To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

If there are any kind of civil rights associated with marriage, it cannot be denied to any group of individuals by an arbitrary basis like sexual orientation. I really doubt anyone disagrees with me here, and if someone does, this is profoundly contrary to even our most basic ideals in this country. This implies one of two conclusions: the civil rights associated with marriage should be bestowed upon homosexuals, or the civil rights associated with marriage should no longer exist (and thus marriage should be made into a non-civil institution). I am of the latter persuasion.

Again. The counterargument here is that homosexuals are not being denied rights. They have the right, just like everyone else, to marry a member of the opposite sex - why should homosexuals be given special rights solely because of their sexual orientation?

the counterargument against this is that marriage has changed a great deal in the past, so simply change it again so that marriage is between any two people, so that all people have the right to marry any man or woman, if they should choose to do so.

But that's redefining marriage, which attacks the very roots of american society, which is just plain ol' wrong. And because this argument isn't based on fact or any sort of objective reality, it can't be argued against, which is why most of the laws that are meant to oppose gay marriage have to do with defining marriage as one man, one woman, and nothing else.

[Zsych]

If you're going to allow marriage between the same sex, you may as well also convenience Muslims by allowing marriage between a man and multiple women, and since it could be considered unjust otherwise, you could give women the right to marry multiple men.

... if the definition of marriage really should be changed.

[Prunesquallor]

	Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you're going to allow marriage between the same sex, you may as well also convenience Muslims by allowing marriage between a man and multiple women, and since it could be considered unjust otherwise, you could give women the right to marry multiple men. ... if the definition of marriage really should be changed.

Who says it's being changed? Polygamy was already considered a part of marriage by many people.

Honestly, if polygamy had less to do with old men in cults victimising underage girls, I would not have a problem with it, nor polyandry either. It does, however, tend to go hand-in-hand with the delusion that women are property, which is the real problem. That gone, marry multiple people, whatever - it's not my business. It's just informed consent that matters. I wouldn't do it myself, not being an extravert, but that's just me.

[kevintr]

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Again. The counterargument here is that homosexuals are not being denied rights. They have the right, just like everyone else, to marry a member of the opposite sex - why should homosexuals be given special rights solely because of their sexual orientation?

Allowing homosexuals the right to marry expands everyones rights, now as a hetrosexual man I have the right to go to Maine and marry another man.

[Mozzes]

	Originally Posted by Storm To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To be fair, there are indecent people of all sexual orientations. But yes, go check out that other thread, it's quite comprehensive.

The question, however, is what does being decent or indecent (whatever those words mean in this context...?) have to do with being allowed to marry?

[Latro]

Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Again. The counterargument here is that homosexuals are not being denied rights. They have the right, just like everyone else, to marry a member of the opposite sex - why should homosexuals be given special rights solely because of their sexual orientation? the counterargument against this is that marriage has changed a great deal in the past, so simply change it again so that marriage is between any two people, so that all people have the right to marry any man or woman, if they should choose to do so. But that's redefining marriage, which attacks the very roots of american society, which is just plain ol' wrong. And because this argument isn't based on fact or any sort of objective reality, it can't be argued against, which is why most of the laws that are meant to oppose gay marriage have to do with defining marriage as one man, one woman, and nothing else.

That's a fallacious counterargument. From a purely governmental perspective, giving civil rights to married couples constitutes saying "I approve of INDIVIDUAL x (emphasis is deliberate) being in a stable, consensual, (presumably) sexual relationship with INDIVIDUAL y and am thus going to give INDIVIDUALS x and y benefits a, b, and c." To then argue that the relationship between male x and male y is somehow not deserving the same approval as the sexual relationship between male q and female r is discrimination, UNLESS you have some kind of objective preference for heterosexual couples, such as favoring procreation and traditional childrearing. If you do, initial laws should be passed to reflect that, which sure as hell isn't going to happen, because we're already vastly overpopulated.

Again though, all these little nitty-gritty complexities can be removed by simply making it a non-civil institution. It's simple, it's non-discriminatory, and it's easy. I don't see why it's not proposed more often.

[rara avis]

	Originally Posted by Mozzes To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The question, however, is what does being decent or indecent (whatever those words mean in this context...?) have to do with being allowed to marry?

Exactly. You do not have to prove your decency or morality to get a marriage license.

It would probably help quite a bit with the divorce statistics, though. Perhaps we should consider that, it might really help to strengthen American society.

I volunteer to be the judge! If you think you're good enough and have strong enough moral fiber to qualify for the rigors of marriage, see me in my office. I'll let you know.

[Reganon]

	Originally Posted by Zsych To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If you're going to allow marriage between the same sex, you may as well also convenience Muslims by allowing marriage between a man and multiple women, and since it could be considered unjust otherwise, you could give women the right to marry multiple men. ... if the definition of marriage really should be changed.

And what is the definition of a marriage? Where in the constitution does it say that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman? If I remember correctly, there is a part of the First Amendment called the Establishment Clause which explicitly prohibits the creation of any state sponsored religion - in which case marriage as defined by the bible is completely irrelevant in legal matters.

[Kele-De]

It is no business of the State to restrict with whom one chooses to live and love. The only difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples is that in one couple's bedroom there is no penis entering inside of a vagina. It is curious to me that folks are so fascinated with the kind of sex others are having.

[ATCGs]

It is not discrimination to require a man to marry a woman (and not another man) to receive the benefits granted by the state for being married. It is functionally identical to giving tax rebates to people who buy hybrid cars. You do x, and get y benefit. Is it discrimination against poor people to give tax deductions to those who donate items to the salvation army? The poor people don't donate items - they could, but they don't.

These arguments revolve around the definition of marriage. It isn't discriminating to only give the benefits of marriage to all people who are married, and require certain criteria for fulfilling the requirements of being married (ie, man & woman, not underage, etc).

The solution here is wait for the bigots to die, I have to concede that their argument is logical, if unbelievably morally bankrupt.

[Synamon]

	Originally Posted by ATCGs To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The solution here is wait for the bigots to die, I have to concede that their argument is logical, if unbelievably morally bankrupt.

You actually think bigots die off? Wow, you are an optimist. The bigots beget more bigots. (That might be the most awesome sentence I have ever typed.) The bigots teach their children their special brand of bigotry and the cycle continues.

[ATCGs]

used to be, blacks were slaves, women were property, and the only people with a vote were those who owned land.

I'm a patient guy.


probably because I'm not gay.