Gays have just as much of a right to marry

An interesting argument I have heard and have never received a straight answer on.

The claim is usually along the lines of "Gays have just as much of a right to marry as anyone else, they can just marry a member of the opposite sex".

Which is a lot like:
"People can have any color car they want, as long as it is black."

"People can marry anyone they want as long as it is the same race."

"People can vote for anyone they want, as long as it is a socialist."

Any rebuttals?

 

Great thread!! Let's see what responses come your way.

 

That argument is perfectly valid.

If everyone has equal rights then you cant call it an issue of individual liberty.
Having different needs does not mean that you're entitled to different rights.

There are a thousand ways you can get married. The fact that you accept 2 of those ways instead of 1 does not make you a better person. It just means you have a different opinion.

If i wanted to marry two women would you accept that? If i wanted to marry my sister would you accept that? And if not, why?

 

We are not going to play around with red herrings or slippery slope fallacies.

This is centered around same sex marriage.

 

__Amen!!__

 

Right.. so your arrogant until the moment someone comes up with an argument you cant answer?

Im not going to type what i said again. But you wont get to make any cocky comments in this thread until you answer my questions.

 

Sounds like you'll be disappointed, then. The subject is very clearly whether or not a right exists to marry a person of the same sex. If you want to discuss other topics make your own thread.

 

You claim a false victory. Dismissing the slippery slope fallacy is hardly conceding a point.

Right. If you would like to make a red herring your own thread, you are more than welcome to.
http://www.politicalforum.com/newthread.php?do=newthread&f=51

 

Well, the answer currently to your question is that the first statement is logically true based on current law. Gays can marry anyone as long as it is of the opposite sex. If, or until the law changes in most States it will be the only way you can marry.

 

Begging the question.

 

Homosexuality is a behavior dictated by sexual attraction. Its not a gender. Its not a race.

It has no special rights...because if it did then all behaviors dictated by sexual attraction would be under the same scope of rights.

 

Which is obvious, the question however is if that is logical to tell someone they can vote for anyone as long as they are socialist.

 

No one is advocating special rights.

People advocate equal rights.

 

Sexual behaviors can be discriminated against. All sexual behaviors do not have to be treated equally.

 

...Which is why people have equal rights. As i very clearly said.

Gay people can get married just like everyone else. Marriage just isnt what they would like it to be.

 

They do is there is not a basis for denying such equal treatment.

 

You can vote for anyone you like, just so long as they are a socialist.

 

Well....you don't see a basis for it. I see it as affirming a more "me, me, me, me" within a marriage rather then an attitude of commitment and sacrifice.

Even in marriage---there is no "equality". Two people contributing and usually one contributes more. Equality isn't possible in that relationship not matter how the two people fight for it. Yet...you want the "right" to be "equal" with hetersexuals. Heck...you won't even be "equal" with your spouse.

If the gay rights agenda was dropping the "rights" mantra and sold their cause based on.....how much better our society and the children of society would be if they could be married and committed....then it might be different. People would accept it better.

If gays would consistantly argue for an attitude of commitment and sacrifice and monogamy rather then "me to" and "we want our tax breaks"...then it might be different.


And they don't see or seem to care squat about the correlation between strong marriage and our future's children. Children are like "nits" to them when added into the argument. Suddenly they remember all the gays that have children when someone like me brings them up...but until then...they are unmentionable.

So...until the gay rights agenda is less self serving I do see a basis to discriminate.

 

They are "unmentionable", because nobody brings up children when discussing the fundamental right of heterosexuals to marry, regardless of any consideration for children. It isn't until gays ask to marry that suddenly children become mentionable and relevant.

 

that right there is the issue I have with "gay rights"

they want to segregate a tiny portion of the population who engage in sex differently than most. That is not the role of govt to create silos on how everyone has sex.

The moment you wish to add in polygamy or incestual relationships they pull out tired old sayings of "red herring" or "strawman" when it's the same bloody topic.

If it's about "equal treatment" then by golly stop identifying yourself by what you do with your "jimmy" or "joanie" and demand that rules be made for individuals

 

says you while I still have a fresh image in my mind of a mom and dad berating their child and dragging him along into a convenience store as I was getting my coffee

how you engage in sex has no bearing on the type of parent you could be

 

Who gets to decide what kind of marriages are okay and what kind are not? Why is your opinion more valid than someone elses just because you would allow 2 types of marriages instead of 1?

Why is gay marriage better than polygamy? The president of south africa has 3 wives. Is he a bad person? In islamic countries polygamy is completely normal. Does that mean that muslims should be able to practice polygamy in America? If not, why not?

 

Which is completely irrlevant.

Wow, quite the argument "you can't be equal to your spouse, so why on earth would you want to enjoy the legal benefits of marriage?".

Self serving in what way? Gay rights? Is it any more "self-serving" than other special interests group?

No?

Really?

Then what is your objection based on?

 

There is no fundamental right for hetersexuals to marry. If that were the case then we couldn't legally get rid of marriage. But we could if we wanted to because it isn't a " right" .

But we don't want to because it is meant to encourage stable families to strengthen our society (in otherwards...our future is raised in more stable environments and are less likely to head off to jail)

 

Where did I make an argument against polygamy? I have not.

That is an irrelevant red herring. If you would like to talk about polygamy you have the "New Thread" button to click.