Homosexual marriage

The right also lacks any sort of legitimate argument against government recognizing gay marriage. Every argument is based on fallacious, incomplete, etc reasoning. They say we can't redefine marriage, even though marriage has been redefined many times before. On top of that, that argument is an appeal to tradition, and therefore fallacious.

The next argument they like to trot out is that homosexuality is a choice, therefore not protected. Now lets ignore the argument over whether or not that is accurate or not, and just focus on the argument accepting that the premise is true. Is is an absurd point, because the vast majority of people who oppose gay marriage are very religious. Religious people happen to choose their religion, and yet their choices are protected by law. So if something being a choice is reason enough to infringe on people's rights, then we should be free to infringe on their rights to religious freedom correct? Because of course they are allowed to practice religion, as long as it is the religion the state approves of(which is the same argument as when they say gay people can still get married, just not to each other). But of course that is absurd. Choice has nothing to do with whether or not something or some one should be protected from discrimination, and should receive equal protection under the law.


The last thing they say is that marriage is NOT a right, therefore it is ok to deprive gay people of the privilege. Except of course, that is nonsense. What they mean I think is that it is not a natural right(a subjective judgment, but whatever), but that is irrelevant anyways. All that matters are legal rights, and certain people have the legal right to marriage, and others are deprived of that right. That is quite clearly an infringement on gay people's right to equal rights and equal protection under the law. Therefore stopping gay people from getting married is illegal. That is the basis on which so many state courts have struck down gay marriage bans, on the basis of equal protection clauses.

I am sure there are other bad arguments people opposed to gay marriage make, but I have never seen a good argument against gay marriage. Not once. I cannot think of one other issue I can say that about. It is quite easy to make a convincing case for just about anything. Opposition to gay marriage is the only exception I can think of.

 

that is an ignorant statement.

it is the reason for marriage, when the term was 'created'.

it is why 'consumation' was the intercourse.


if you do not comprehend that, i understand.

back in the old days men would not get married or even give a hoot about women if it were not for having children.

heck a man used to be able to walk away from a women if she did not produce,

You are not well read by any means.

in a sense, i am glad. With your sick uneducated mind, you dont need to live into the next generation.

in this case and point, NO just treated like a gay marriage; no tax benefits

i agree

i was talking about what the term originated for

i mean, when cultures created marriage, i am sure it was not for 'taxe' benefits

you need help too

but it aint required

you must not be well read.................... or have much experience with me or gay folk.

I have more gay friends then you perhaps have any friends, period.

go lay by your dish!

 

Some like to propose this because in some cases its true but in many cases it is not. A child born outside of wedlock still has lineage protections and I've been married twice, never had children, and so this is pure BS from my personal perspective.

In a real sense this is true because statutory discrimination does exist under the laws. That's predominately why the Courts have ruled that the prohibition of same-sex marriage violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Here's the choice then. Eliminate the legal institution of marriage completely which in one fell swoop eliminates the legal discrimination or revise the legal definition of marriage to include those who are being discriminated against or change all of the hundreds of laws that impose discrimination based upon the legal institution of marriage. What is not acceptable is allowing the discrimination to continue.

Very weird expressed beliefs related to sex between consenting adults.

Should all couples raising children be afforded the identical benefits by the government?

BTW I support elimination of the tax exemptions for religious institutions because they really are a business that shouldn't be given preferrential tax benefits.

 

Actually "marriage" was created to establish ownership of the woman (or more accurately women because original marriage was polygamous) by the man. Remember this goes way back to the very earliest days of mankind when we went from hunter/gatherers to being farmers. Originally in roaming groups of hunter/gatherers there really wasn't marriage at all and sex was common between all members of the tribe. It wasn't until mankind began farming and became fixed to the land that marriage emerged. Women did not enjoy equal rights or recognition and were basically treated as property.

In many religions today the men still treat their wife as a possession. This can best be exemplified by the spousal abuse we see in so many marriages today. People don't beat up someone they consider to be their equal. Many men beat their wives just like they would beat a dog.

 

The problem with your ridiculous rationalization, is that if Bob and Jim down the street get married, not a single one of your civil rights are violated (or anyone else).

No one is saying you can't hold on to your bigoted opinion. That wouldn't change, nor is anyone asking for it to change.

Gays don't care if you recognize their marriages as valid, only that the state does.


You anti-gay marriage people just don't seem to be able to grasp that not a single thing about your life will change if they can marry. Not your right to opinion, and certainly not the "meaning" of your own hetero marriage.

 

isnt that what marriage is for now?

not to the Zo'e?

ever read the word Polyandry?

How about the old tibetan cultures?

The fact is, sex in itself is for procreation in naturally to any living species. Or do you think god made sex for entertainment

OK.............

you went to hunter/gathers and i went back to life itself............. bottom line, sex is about procreation and as you pointed out, 'property rights' is what marriage was about.............

And if you go back to my initial post, it was claiming marriage is for lineage protection as 'property rights' is why the 'protection' was important.

So if i marry a man and make him my wife, i could put him to work and then if i kicked his butt for not doing what he is told, is that wife abuse?

isnt there a phrase about, 'the dog is man's best friend'. I never read the pun about "wife is man's best friend"..... in fact a statement like that could get you beat-up in some circles

You know i am about as equal minded as anyone but i really dont like to be discounted with such frivilous posting.

ie.... i will treat your posts as a joke if you are going to contest; just to debate on the biased side.

 

Some would argue that their "Right to discriminate under the law" is infringed upon but then no one has a right to discriminate under the law so the argument is BS.

It is true that the Rights of Same-Sex couples are in no way infringed upon by the inclusion of Same-Sex couples under the marriage laws.

 

You seem to have missed his point. "Tradition" refers to a long-established way of thinking or doing some thing. Marriage tradition has changed many times throughout history. If by "tradition" you mean only how it occurs now, then that isn't tradition at all.

And if tradition has changed in the past (it has), why can't it change again? Invoking "tradition" is not an adequate or valid excuse to deny change.

BS. You have done a horrible job at being objective.

I can think of several reasons why homosexual marriage would benefit society, however those reasons are ultimately irrelevant to your argument. Not everything needs to benefit society. The only thing that matters is that it is not a detriment, and it isn't.

 

LOL, you're going to have to do better than "I think it's icky". You have no right to not be offended, thus it does not count as a negative affect.

And certainly nothing is being shoved down your throat. No one is forcing you to marry someone of the same sex, attend homosexual marriages, or even change your opinion about the whole subject.

You really don't have a single valid argument.

 

OK............ each have an opinion and if you were married and didnt have a child(ren), that aint my fault

there aint discrimination for the term 'marriage' the discrimination is that weirdo's think that loving someone requires or necessitates marriage. Or even worst, the idiots that gat married just for tax benefits, which i would consider abuse of the system. No one deserves a tax reduction for getting married and not having an additional mouth to feed. In fact, with a 2 income household the taxes should be increased rather than decreased if there is no children to support and the overhead is reduced with the combining of resources.

if no consent, then it would be rape. So the consent issue is irrelevant.

The weird part is that people have been led to believe that love requires marriage or that getting married is a right to impose to the taxation laws.

Head of household is already a venue

i agree

 

You're not very good with logic are you? The same reasoning applies whether the subject is race or sex.

Only if you are also "irrationally obsessed" by being attracted to members of the opposite sex. It doesn't matter if one is hetero or homosexual, neither has a choice - so no.

Of course they can, only with a little help. They would also provide a different benefit by being much more likely to adopt. Personally, I would argue that with the current population and rate of growth, providing a good stable home for a child already here is much more beneficial to society than bringing a new life into existence.

 

the BS is trying to put same sexed coupled within the 'marriage laws'

ie.... homosexual marriage, is an oxymoron of terms

more like; same-sex couples, dont need to use marriage to get the same rights found within marriage laws....

 

How marriage defined is completely man-made anyway, so there is no NATURAL oxymoron here.

Whether you want to use the term rights are privileges, the fact remains that some things are conferred to married people that are not to unmarried people. So even if we do not want actual "marriage" of homosexuals, we must still allow something that is essentially exactly the same thing as marriage in order to confer those same privileges to the extent that not calling it marriage is merely a word-game.

 

You act as if being homosexual means you are born without sex organs. It just shows how ignorant you are.

Homosexual people can procreate.

Example: The author Samuel Delany married the poet Marilyn Hacker and they had a child named Iva. Both Delany and Hacker were homosexual at the time they procreated.

 

I'm not so sure that's true, but even if it is, it has no bearing on "now".

It was also quite common to marry without love for the sole purpose of "merging" two families. Arranged marriages still happen today in some countries.

But again, this has no bearing on "now".

You are not very rational, by any means.

Again, this has no bearing on "now".

LOL, it's always amusing when people use this type of argument. You don't know me personally or have any idea how many people I know or how many friends I have.

That aside, it's also interesting that with sooooooo many gay friends, you still oppose their rights for equality.

Some friend.

 

homosexual's dont procreate, naturally..... so naturally them lines go extinct

i have zero problem with conveying 'rights'..... my issue is the word game with trying to make a man a bride and a women a groom, as constituted in the terms of marriage.

It is almost as consider the choice of a person as what defines the biological connatation of 'sexual orientation'. ie..... physiology shares the 'sexual orientation' of a living thing, not the choice a person make as to what they prefer. The abuse of terms (word games) is what makes the issue so queer.

 

you don't think there is a sizable portion of the US population that is racist? are you kidding me?

 

lol, not it hasn't. it's existed in humans since recorded history. The fact you find it "icky" is quite irrelevant.

 

i see your point. As now on Market Street in San fran, you can window shop and see 6" pumps in man size 12.

ahhhhhhh......... and why merge?

you ranted on gay sexuality being as basic as heterosexuals and any rational person who has actually been within and knows gays circles, people and has them as friends knows thats a stoned cold lie. They are almost 10 times more active as the 'normal' folk when you go to ratio of promiscuity within the people.

i dont oppose 'rights' as i know all are equal.

i oppose the moronic claims of idiots

 

To exemplify the lack of logic I will provide a simple example.

Person A and Person B are living together raising Child C.
Person X and Person Y are living together raising Child Z.

A-B and X-Y are all adults raising children and should be treated identically under the law. Their sex is irrelevant as their situations are identical.

 

This argument doesn't deter me.
Civil rights issues should be above state sovereignty.
States' rights is too often a codeword for the ability of states to violate the rights of groups.
If gay marriage is a right, it should be enforced federally.

This is why I don't consider Ron Paul a libertarian (not that I am one). States' rights placed above civil rights is about as anti-liberty as you can get. It's a paleo-conservative concept.

 

Then you should oppose your own moronic reliance on the naturalistic fallacy.

 

I don't consider modern American libertarians to be libertarian. As it is for almost all right-wing fundamentalists, liberty includes only those liberties of which they personally approve.