Best Arguments For and Against Gay Marriage? - Page 16

DreamingNaiad · 21st November 2012, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

If not they CAN'T do that. That's a problem. If you can't marry the person you love then what good is marriage?

Yeah, I was just pointing out that the Con made no sense.

RandFan · 21st November 2012, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Yes. That's correct. That's what I'm saying.

A.) And you don't see the absurdity of that? B.) You don't see that as special pleading? C.) Why do you see them differently? D.) Why should anyone care about your position?

Quote:

ETA: Of course, if society decides that marriage doesn't include a promise of spousal support, then I suppose that's ok, in which case society is saying:

Married: Screw Steve.
Not Married: Screw Steve.

Let's back up, if society includes a promise of spousal support in marriage and Bob and Steve are free to choose to marry or not marry then there is no problem because they get to decide how best to pursue happiness, right? Isn't that what America is supposed to be about? Freedom to choose? Why can't a woman marry another women if that is what she chooses?

If we truly believe that people are endowed with the right to pursue happiness then people (women and men, straight, gay, bi, trans) should be able to decide whether to take the commitment of marriage and enjoy the benefits of marriage or choose to opt out.

What is wrong with that solution?

RandFan · 21st November 2012, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad

Yeah, I was just pointing out that the Con made no sense.

Cool.

I can't remember who but someone kept asking "what does love have to do with marriage"? Given that the vast majority of us would only marry someone we love then it has almost everything to do with it. And if we are not free to choose to marry the person we love (given that the person we love, loves us and is a consenting adult) then what is the point of marriage? I'm not going to marry someone I don't love. Hell, who would?

Meadmaker · 21st November 2012, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

A.) And you don't see the absurdity of that? B.) You don't see that as special pleading? C.) Why do you see them differently? D.) Why should anyone care about your position?

A) No. B) No. C) Because they are different. D) Mirror.

Quote:

If we truly believe that people are endowed with the right to pursue happiness then people (women and men, straight, gay, bi, trans) should be able to decide whether to take the commitment of marriage and enjoy the benefits of marriage or choose to opt out.

What is wrong with that solution?

Nothing. What I have been pointing out is that the "commitment" aspect seems to be nonexistent or at most temporary.

ETA: Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.

RandFan · 21st November 2012, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

A) No. B) No. C) Because they are different.

Why isn't that just another way of saying "special pleading"? You understand that you are special pleading. You are saying that you would care about another human being under special circumstances but you don't care about that person absent those special circumstances.

Quote:

D) Mirror.

I'm sorry but that won't fly. I'm not talking about your position per se. I'm talking about your argument. If your argument is based on carrying about someone in one instance and not giving a damn in another then why should anyone care about such an arbitrary position?

Quote:

What I have been pointing out is that the "commitment" aspect seems to be nonexistent or at most temporary.

What does this mean and what does it have to do with gays and lesbians being allowed to get married?

appalling · 21st November 2012, 11:34 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

A) What I have been pointing out is that the "commitment" aspect seems to be nonexistent or at most temporary.

Are you saying here that there are no committed same-sex relationships or that there are no same-sex people who would get married for the purpose of demonstrating that commitment?

Or are you criticizing an attempt to commit because sometimes it doesn't work out?

In any case, whether it's the best way to ensure long-term commitment or not, if it's an option for people in different-gender relationships then it should be an option for people in same-gender relationships. They should have the same opportunity to succeed or fail. If different-gender marriage is allowed at low levels of whatever you consider commitment than it should be available at that level to same-gender relationships.

The committed relationships already exist whether they are interfered with by state or society or not. Right now, different-gender relationships are given specific financial and institutional bonuses, and those bonuses should not be withheld from same-gender marriages

Meadmaker · 22nd November 2012, 06:43 AM

Originally Posted by appalling

Are you saying here that there are no committed same-sex relationships or that there are no same-sex people who would get married for the purpose of demonstrating that commitment?

Or are you criticizing an attempt to commit because sometimes it doesn't work out?

..The committed relationships already exist whether they are interfered with by state or society or not. Right now, different-gender relationships are given specific financial and institutional bonuses, and those bonuses should not be withheld from same-gender marriages

We're talking about a different sort of commitment.

I'm talking about the sort of commitments that can be enforced by a judge.

And yes, if two men are willing to allow that sort of interference in their lives, I'm willing to let them.

Meadmaker · 22nd November 2012, 07:04 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Why isn't that just another way of saying "special pleading"? You understand that you are special pleading. You are saying that you would care about another human being under special circumstances but you don't care about that person absent those special circumstances.

I don't care about them either way.

I do care about enforcing legally binding agreements. If there are no legally binding agreements, then their private business is, and ought to remain, private.

Quote:

What does this mean and what does it have to do with gays and lesbians being allowed to get married?

You've asked this several times. I've answered several times. You don't seem to like my answer and you don't seem to agree with my answer. You don't even seem to understand my answer. Nevertheless, it has been answered.

I'm perfectly willing to leave it at that, but if you keep asking questions, I'll keep answering them. This time, I'm going to simply refer to previous answers, but if you are very very curious, and would like to continue, just ask again, and I'll answer again, next time.

RandFan · 22nd November 2012, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I don't care about them either way.

I do care about enforcing legally binding agreements. If there are no legally binding agreements, then their private business is, and ought to remain, private.

But what does this have to do with the OP? The govt can enforce contracts between gays and lesbians as well as it can enforce contracts between heterosexuals.

Quote:

You've asked this several times. I've answered several times.

Honestly you have not answered it in any way that was understandable. I honestly have no idea what your position is.

Quote:

You don't seem to like my answer and you don't seem to agree with my answer.

It has nothing at all to do with liking or even agreeing. I've no idea what it even is.

Quote:

You don't even seem to understand my answer.

BINGO!

Quote:

Nevertheless, it has been answered.

No.

Quote:

I'm perfectly willing to leave it at that, but if you keep asking questions, I'll keep answering them. This time, I'm going to simply refer to previous answers, but if you are very very curious, and would like to continue, just ask again, and I'll answer again, next time.

Feel free to point me to a post that you think answers the question.

bruto · 22nd November 2012, 09:23 AM

I still think Meadmaker is off the beam here. It's hard to separate this question into its components when there are so many other issues involved in marriage itself, but I see it as a simple "whose ox is gored" question. The actual substance of marriage is not important. For reasons good or bad, the government confers a set of benefits and obligations on a group of people who do a certain thing. That group currently includes heterosexuals and excludes homosexuals who claim that if they do that thing, the government's imagined or real benefits and procedures would be entirely unchanged for those currently included, and enhanced for those currently excluded. Other questions may be quite pertinent, and might even be seen trump this one: is homosexuality a sin or an aberration, is marriage a bad idea, should the rules be changed, and so forth. But they're all irrelevant to the question raised here no matter how good an idea it is to ask them somewhere else. What harm is done to whom, and what benefit, real or imagined, is extended to whom, by gay marriage? If you have no alternate agenda on the issue of gay rights, I think time has already made the question largely obsolete, and will soon enough finish the job.

Meadmaker · 23rd November 2012, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by bruto

I still think Meadmaker is off the beam here. It's hard to separate this question into its components when there are so many other issues involved in marriage itself, but I see it as a simple "whose ox is gored" question. The actual substance of marriage is not important. For reasons good or bad, the government confers a set of benefits and obligations on a group of people who do a certain thing. That group currently includes heterosexuals and excludes homosexuals who claim that if they do that thing, the government's imagined or real benefits and procedures would be entirely unchanged for those currently included, and enhanced for those currently excluded. Other questions may be quite pertinent, and might even be seen trump this one: is homosexuality a sin or an aberration, is marriage a bad idea, should the rules be changed, and so forth. But they're all irrelevant to the question raised here no matter how good an idea it is to ask them somewhere else. What harm is done to whom, and what benefit, real or imagined, is extended to whom, by gay marriage? If you have no alternate agenda on the issue of gay rights, I think time has already made the question largely obsolete, and will soon enough finish the job.

One way to look at the question asked in the OP is pretty much like you expressed above. It could be phrased as, "Given that marriage exists and will continue to exist exactly as it is, what are the best arguments for and against extending marriage to same sex couples?"

On JREF, that's a rather boring question. The overwhelming majority of people will say that it ought to be extended, and the "arguments" will mostly be simple assertions that discrimination is wrong.

Thread done.

Furthermore, if anyone dares present an argument against gay marriage they will be set upon instantly. The whole thread was set up as an opportunity to make fun of anyone who disagreed with the majority. The "lol" in the original question kind of gives away that intent, in case there was any doubt.

However, the question as asked could be looked at differently, with at least two components. In order to determine whether gays should be allowed to marry, you first have to justify why any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, ought to be allowed to marry, and have that marriage recognized by the state. If there is no justification for marriage at all, then it seems unlikely anyone will find any justification for homosexual marriages.

It's a question few have wished to explore. Granted, it wasn't the intent of the OP, but it's a prerequisite to the question asked in the OP. Besides, the real intent of the OP was to find people to make fun of. It wasn't exactly a noble purpose, in my humble opinion.

RandFan · 23rd November 2012, 07:57 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

On JREF, that's a rather boring question. The overwhelming majority of people will say that it ought to be extended, and the "arguments" will mostly be simple assertions that discrimination is wrong.

Not true.

Quote:

Furthermore, if anyone dares present an argument against gay marriage they will be set upon instantly.

Translation = people who disagree will provide counter arguments. No one attacked you.

Quote:

The whole thread was set up as an opportunity to make fun of anyone who disagreed with the majority.

I get so sick of people playing the victim card. You really ought to know better.

Quote:

However, the question as asked could be looked at differently, with at least two components. In order to determine whether gays should be allowed to marry, you first have to justify why any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, ought to be allowed to marry, and have that marriage recognized by the state.

I have a lot of respect for you Mead but this is a giant load of nonsense. It's a way to avoid the question all together. It's a red herring.

Quote:

If there is no justification for marriage at all, then it seems unlikely anyone will find any justification for homosexual marriages.

Start a thread.

Quote:

It's a question few have wished to explore. Granted, it wasn't the intent of the OP, but it's a prerequisite to the question asked in the OP. Besides, the real intent of the OP was to find people to make fun of. It wasn't exactly a noble purpose, in my humble opinion.

It's an irrelevant question. This has been explained to you many times. If you want to get rid of marriage then that is a separate thread -------> Go start it. But, given that there is marriage, should gays and lesbians be allowed to participate.

RandFan · 23rd November 2012, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

However, the question as asked could be looked at differently, with at least two components. In order to determine whether gays should be allowed to marry, you first have to justify why any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, ought to be allowed to marry, and have that marriage recognized by the state. If there is no justification for marriage at all, then it seems unlikely anyone will find any justification for homosexual marriages.

I'm going to give you an example of just how irrelevant your question is with a comparison.

Bob: Should there be seat-belt laws?
Tim: There should not be cars.
Bob: That's a different subject.
Tim: But if we decide there should be no cars then the question is moot.
Bob: But there are cars and the question affects people right now not some future alternative reality.

Meadmaker, so long as there are cars and so long as there is marriage then there will be side discussions about them and just because you think cars and/or marriage ought to be done away with doesn't really address those issues. It's the very definition of red herring.

Meadmaker · 24th November 2012, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm going to give you an example of just how irrelevant your question is with a comparison.

Bob: Should there be seat-belt laws?
Tim: There should not be cars.
Bob: That's a different subject.
Tim: But if we decide there should be no cars then the question is moot.
Bob: But there are cars and the question affects people right now not some future alternative reality.

Meadmaker, so long as there are cars and so long as there is marriage then there will be side discussions about them and just because you think cars and/or marriage ought to be done away with doesn't really address those issues. It's the very definition of red herring.

I understand that you wish to make this a very narrow discussion, and that was the OP's intent as well. Yes, keeping marriage as only between a man and a woman is discrimination. Everyone gets that, and darned near everyone here thinks it's bad.

Nevertheless, if you understood what I was saying, you would understand your own argument better. If you don't care to reread what I wrote, I would recommend TragicMonkey's discussions from the first few pages of the thread.

bruto · 24th November 2012, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

One way to look at the question asked in the OP is pretty much like you expressed above. It could be phrased as, "Given that marriage exists and will continue to exist exactly as it is, what are the best arguments for and against extending marriage to same sex couples?"

On JREF, that's a rather boring question. The overwhelming majority of people will say that it ought to be extended, and the "arguments" will mostly be simple assertions that discrimination is wrong.

Thread done.

Furthermore, if anyone dares present an argument against gay marriage they will be set upon instantly. The whole thread was set up as an opportunity to make fun of anyone who disagreed with the majority. The "lol" in the original question kind of gives away that intent, in case there was any doubt.

However, the question as asked could be looked at differently, with at least two components. In order to determine whether gays should be allowed to marry, you first have to justify why any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, ought to be allowed to marry, and have that marriage recognized by the state. If there is no justification for marriage at all, then it seems unlikely anyone will find any justification for homosexual marriages.

It's a question few have wished to explore. Granted, it wasn't the intent of the OP, but it's a prerequisite to the question asked in the OP. Besides, the real intent of the OP was to find people to make fun of. It wasn't exactly a noble purpose, in my humble opinion.

There's plenty of room for argument and disagreement on marriage itself, but counting it as an issue in this particular debate seems like a red herring. As long as you respond to every "who should be included in the group" question with an attack on the idea of the group, you get to dodge the real question.

I think there were enough anti inclusion and veiled anti arguments here to make the original thread worth pursuing even with the obvious majority viewpoint. If one is firmly in the majority because one has really thought about it, the ignobility of the purpose is debateable. Even it it seems like a pile-on, I always hope that a few of those people will take a moment actually to think beyond given rules and stereotypes about what they're saying, and even though one can get figuratively hoarse repeating, there seem to be some misconceptions about what actually happens in the real world, and how and why decisions are reached.

RandFan · 24th November 2012, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I understand that you wish to make this a very narrow discussion, and that was the OP's intent as well. Yes, keeping marriage as only between a man and a woman is discrimination. Everyone gets that, and darned near everyone here thinks it's bad.

I reject your premises. However, let's accept them for sake of argument. You are OT regardless. If damn near everyone thought we ought to wear seat belts it would not justify taking a discussion about seat belts off topic.

Look, it's really simple, if you don't think there is anything to discuss when it comes to seat belts because there is no disagreement then don't respond in a thread about seat belts. Is that really so difficult to understand? I'm sorry but you are simply OT.

Puppycow · 30th November 2012, 05:40 AM

Don't be a wife

"I’ve noticed that my visceral anti-marriage animus is particularly strong when I hear twentysomething lesbians talking about their wives and fiancees. Are they really going to mate for life, like swans in sensible shoes? That seems attractive at 35, but at 25 it’s positively Amish."

21st November 2012, 10:11 AM	#602
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,073	Originally Posted by Meadmaker Yes. That's correct. That's what I'm saying. A.) And you don't see the absurdity of that? B.) You don't see that as special pleading? C.) Why do you see them differently? D.) Why should anyone care about your position? Quote: ETA: Of course, if society decides that marriage doesn't include a promise of spousal support, then I suppose that's ok, in which case society is saying: Married: Screw Steve. Not Married: Screw Steve. Let's back up, if society includes a promise of spousal support in marriage and Bob and Steve are free to choose to marry or not marry then there is no problem because they get to decide how best to pursue happiness, right? Isn't that what America is supposed to be about? Freedom to choose? Why can't a woman marry another women if that is what she chooses? If we truly believe that people are endowed with the right to pursue happiness then people (women and men, straight, gay, bi, trans) should be able to decide whether to take the commitment of marriage and enjoy the benefits of marriage or choose to opt out. What is wrong with that solution?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

21st November 2012, 10:19 AM	#603
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,073	Originally Posted by DreamingNaiad Yeah, I was just pointing out that the Con made no sense. Cool. I can't remember who but someone kept asking "what does love have to do with marriage"? Given that the vast majority of us would only marry someone we love then it has almost everything to do with it. And if we are not free to choose to marry the person we love (given that the person we love, loves us and is a consenting adult) then what is the point of marriage? I'm not going to marry someone I don't love. Hell, who would?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

21st November 2012, 10:29 AM	#604
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Detroit suburbs Posts: 11,434	Originally Posted by RandFan A.) And you don't see the absurdity of that? B.) You don't see that as special pleading? C.) Why do you see them differently? D.) Why should anyone care about your position? A) No. B) No. C) Because they are different. D) Mirror. Quote: If we truly believe that people are endowed with the right to pursue happiness then people (women and men, straight, gay, bi, trans) should be able to decide whether to take the commitment of marriage and enjoy the benefits of marriage or choose to opt out. What is wrong with that solution? Nothing. What I have been pointing out is that the "commitment" aspect seems to be nonexistent or at most temporary. ETA: Happy Thanksgiving, everyone.
	__________________ Dave "War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Particles are waves." Last edited by Meadmaker; 21st November 2012 at 10:30 AM.

21st November 2012, 10:43 AM	#605
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,073	Originally Posted by Meadmaker A) No. B) No. C) Because they are different. Why isn't that just another way of saying "special pleading"? You understand that you are special pleading. You are saying that you would care about another human being under special circumstances but you don't care about that person absent those special circumstances. Quote: D) Mirror. I'm sorry but that won't fly. I'm not talking about your position per se. I'm talking about your argument. If your argument is based on carrying about someone in one instance and not giving a damn in another then why should anyone care about such an arbitrary position? Quote: What I have been pointing out is that the "commitment" aspect seems to be nonexistent or at most temporary. What does this mean and what does it have to do with gays and lesbians being allowed to get married?
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

22nd November 2012, 06:43 AM	#607
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Detroit suburbs Posts: 11,434	Originally Posted by appalling Are you saying here that there are no committed same-sex relationships or that there are no same-sex people who would get married for the purpose of demonstrating that commitment? Or are you criticizing an attempt to commit because sometimes it doesn't work out? ..The committed relationships already exist whether they are interfered with by state or society or not. Right now, different-gender relationships are given specific financial and institutional bonuses, and those bonuses should not be withheld from same-gender marriages We're talking about a different sort of commitment. I'm talking about the sort of commitments that can be enforced by a judge. And yes, if two men are willing to allow that sort of interference in their lives, I'm willing to let them.
	__________________ Dave "War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Particles are waves."

21st November 2012, 09:56 AM	#601
DreamingNaiad Critical Thinker Join Date: Jun 2012 Location: The forgotten sweet abyss Posts: 465	Originally Posted by RandFan If not they CAN'T do that. That's a problem. If you can't marry the person you love then what good is marriage? Yeah, I was just pointing out that the Con made no sense.

21st November 2012, 11:34 AM	#606
appalling Critical Thinker Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Beyond the reach of your cars. Posts: 320	Originally Posted by Meadmaker A) What I have been pointing out is that the "commitment" aspect seems to be nonexistent or at most temporary. Are you saying here that there are no committed same-sex relationships or that there are no same-sex people who would get married for the purpose of demonstrating that commitment? Or are you criticizing an attempt to commit because sometimes it doesn't work out? In any case, whether it's the best way to ensure long-term commitment or not, if it's an option for people in different-gender relationships then it should be an option for people in same-gender relationships. They should have the same opportunity to succeed or fail. If different-gender marriage is allowed at low levels of whatever you consider commitment than it should be available at that level to same-gender relationships. The committed relationships already exist whether they are interfered with by state or society or not. Right now, different-gender relationships are given specific financial and institutional bonuses, and those bonuses should not be withheld from same-gender marriages

22nd November 2012, 07:04 AM	#608
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Detroit suburbs Posts: 11,434	Originally Posted by RandFan Why isn't that just another way of saying "special pleading"? You understand that you are special pleading. You are saying that you would care about another human being under special circumstances but you don't care about that person absent those special circumstances. I don't care about them either way. I do care about enforcing legally binding agreements. If there are no legally binding agreements, then their private business is, and ought to remain, private. Quote: What does this mean and what does it have to do with gays and lesbians being allowed to get married? You've asked this several times. I've answered several times. You don't seem to like my answer and you don't seem to agree with my answer. You don't even seem to understand my answer. Nevertheless, it has been answered. I'm perfectly willing to leave it at that, but if you keep asking questions, I'll keep answering them. This time, I'm going to simply refer to previous answers, but if you are very very curious, and would like to continue, just ask again, and I'll answer again, next time.
	__________________ Dave "War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Particles are waves."

22nd November 2012, 08:02 AM	#609
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,073	Originally Posted by Meadmaker I don't care about them either way. I do care about enforcing legally binding agreements. If there are no legally binding agreements, then their private business is, and ought to remain, private. But what does this have to do with the OP? The govt can enforce contracts between gays and lesbians as well as it can enforce contracts between heterosexuals. Quote: You've asked this several times. I've answered several times. Honestly you have not answered it in any way that was understandable. I honestly have no idea what your position is. Quote: You don't seem to like my answer and you don't seem to agree with my answer. It has nothing at all to do with liking or even agreeing. I've no idea what it even is. Quote: You don't even seem to understand my answer. BINGO! Quote: Nevertheless, it has been answered. No. Quote: I'm perfectly willing to leave it at that, but if you keep asking questions, I'll keep answering them. This time, I'm going to simply refer to previous answers, but if you are very very curious, and would like to continue, just ask again, and I'll answer again, next time. Feel free to point me to a post that you think answers the question.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

22nd November 2012, 09:23 AM	#610
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,180	I still think Meadmaker is off the beam here. It's hard to separate this question into its components when there are so many other issues involved in marriage itself, but I see it as a simple "whose ox is gored" question. The actual substance of marriage is not important. For reasons good or bad, the government confers a set of benefits and obligations on a group of people who do a certain thing. That group currently includes heterosexuals and excludes homosexuals who claim that if they do that thing, the government's imagined or real benefits and procedures would be entirely unchanged for those currently included, and enhanced for those currently excluded. Other questions may be quite pertinent, and might even be seen trump this one: is homosexuality a sin or an aberration, is marriage a bad idea, should the rules be changed, and so forth. But they're all irrelevant to the question raised here no matter how good an idea it is to ask them somewhere else. What harm is done to whom, and what benefit, real or imagined, is extended to whom, by gay marriage? If you have no alternate agenda on the issue of gay rights, I think time has already made the question largely obsolete, and will soon enough finish the job.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

23rd November 2012, 06:48 PM	#611
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Detroit suburbs Posts: 11,434	Originally Posted by bruto I still think Meadmaker is off the beam here. It's hard to separate this question into its components when there are so many other issues involved in marriage itself, but I see it as a simple "whose ox is gored" question. The actual substance of marriage is not important. For reasons good or bad, the government confers a set of benefits and obligations on a group of people who do a certain thing. That group currently includes heterosexuals and excludes homosexuals who claim that if they do that thing, the government's imagined or real benefits and procedures would be entirely unchanged for those currently included, and enhanced for those currently excluded. Other questions may be quite pertinent, and might even be seen trump this one: is homosexuality a sin or an aberration, is marriage a bad idea, should the rules be changed, and so forth. But they're all irrelevant to the question raised here no matter how good an idea it is to ask them somewhere else. What harm is done to whom, and what benefit, real or imagined, is extended to whom, by gay marriage? If you have no alternate agenda on the issue of gay rights, I think time has already made the question largely obsolete, and will soon enough finish the job. One way to look at the question asked in the OP is pretty much like you expressed above. It could be phrased as, "Given that marriage exists and will continue to exist exactly as it is, what are the best arguments for and against extending marriage to same sex couples?" On JREF, that's a rather boring question. The overwhelming majority of people will say that it ought to be extended, and the "arguments" will mostly be simple assertions that discrimination is wrong. Thread done. Furthermore, if anyone dares present an argument against gay marriage they will be set upon instantly. The whole thread was set up as an opportunity to make fun of anyone who disagreed with the majority. The "lol" in the original question kind of gives away that intent, in case there was any doubt. However, the question as asked could be looked at differently, with at least two components. In order to determine whether gays should be allowed to marry, you first have to justify why any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, ought to be allowed to marry, and have that marriage recognized by the state. If there is no justification for marriage at all, then it seems unlikely anyone will find any justification for homosexual marriages. It's a question few have wished to explore. Granted, it wasn't the intent of the OP, but it's a prerequisite to the question asked in the OP. Besides, the real intent of the OP was to find people to make fun of. It wasn't exactly a noble purpose, in my humble opinion.
	__________________ Dave "War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Particles are waves."

23rd November 2012, 07:57 PM	#612
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,073	Originally Posted by Meadmaker On JREF, that's a rather boring question. The overwhelming majority of people will say that it ought to be extended, and the "arguments" will mostly be simple assertions that discrimination is wrong. Not true. Quote: Furthermore, if anyone dares present an argument against gay marriage they will be set upon instantly. Translation = people who disagree will provide counter arguments. No one attacked you. Quote: The whole thread was set up as an opportunity to make fun of anyone who disagreed with the majority. I get so sick of people playing the victim card. You really ought to know better. Quote: However, the question as asked could be looked at differently, with at least two components. In order to determine whether gays should be allowed to marry, you first have to justify why any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, ought to be allowed to marry, and have that marriage recognized by the state. I have a lot of respect for you Mead but this is a giant load of nonsense. It's a way to avoid the question all together. It's a red herring. Quote: If there is no justification for marriage at all, then it seems unlikely anyone will find any justification for homosexual marriages. Start a thread. Quote: It's a question few have wished to explore. Granted, it wasn't the intent of the OP, but it's a prerequisite to the question asked in the OP. Besides, the real intent of the OP was to find people to make fun of. It wasn't exactly a noble purpose, in my humble opinion. It's an irrelevant question. This has been explained to you many times. If you want to get rid of marriage then that is a separate thread -------> Go start it. But, given that there is marriage, should gays and lesbians be allowed to participate.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

23rd November 2012, 08:03 PM	#613
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,073	Originally Posted by Meadmaker However, the question as asked could be looked at differently, with at least two components. In order to determine whether gays should be allowed to marry, you first have to justify why any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, ought to be allowed to marry, and have that marriage recognized by the state. If there is no justification for marriage at all, then it seems unlikely anyone will find any justification for homosexual marriages. I'm going to give you an example of just how irrelevant your question is with a comparison. Bob: Should there be seat-belt laws? Tim: There should not be cars. Bob: That's a different subject. Tim: But if we decide there should be no cars then the question is moot. Bob: But there are cars and the question affects people right now not some future alternative reality. Meadmaker, so long as there are cars and so long as there is marriage then there will be side discussions about them and just because you think cars and/or marriage ought to be done away with doesn't really address those issues. It's the very definition of red herring.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

24th November 2012, 07:20 AM	#614
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Detroit suburbs Posts: 11,434	Originally Posted by RandFan I'm going to give you an example of just how irrelevant your question is with a comparison. Bob: Should there be seat-belt laws? Tim: There should not be cars. Bob: That's a different subject. Tim: But if we decide there should be no cars then the question is moot. Bob: But there are cars and the question affects people right now not some future alternative reality. Meadmaker, so long as there are cars and so long as there is marriage then there will be side discussions about them and just because you think cars and/or marriage ought to be done away with doesn't really address those issues. It's the very definition of red herring. I understand that you wish to make this a very narrow discussion, and that was the OP's intent as well. Yes, keeping marriage as only between a man and a woman is discrimination. Everyone gets that, and darned near everyone here thinks it's bad. Nevertheless, if you understood what I was saying, you would understand your own argument better. If you don't care to reread what I wrote, I would recommend TragicMonkey's discussions from the first few pages of the thread.
	__________________ Dave "War is Peace. Freedom is slavery. Particles are waves."

24th November 2012, 08:50 AM	#615
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 11,180	Originally Posted by Meadmaker One way to look at the question asked in the OP is pretty much like you expressed above. It could be phrased as, "Given that marriage exists and will continue to exist exactly as it is, what are the best arguments for and against extending marriage to same sex couples?" On JREF, that's a rather boring question. The overwhelming majority of people will say that it ought to be extended, and the "arguments" will mostly be simple assertions that discrimination is wrong. Thread done. Furthermore, if anyone dares present an argument against gay marriage they will be set upon instantly. The whole thread was set up as an opportunity to make fun of anyone who disagreed with the majority. The "lol" in the original question kind of gives away that intent, in case there was any doubt. However, the question as asked could be looked at differently, with at least two components. In order to determine whether gays should be allowed to marry, you first have to justify why any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, ought to be allowed to marry, and have that marriage recognized by the state. If there is no justification for marriage at all, then it seems unlikely anyone will find any justification for homosexual marriages. It's a question few have wished to explore. Granted, it wasn't the intent of the OP, but it's a prerequisite to the question asked in the OP. Besides, the real intent of the OP was to find people to make fun of. It wasn't exactly a noble purpose, in my humble opinion. There's plenty of room for argument and disagreement on marriage itself, but counting it as an issue in this particular debate seems like a red herring. As long as you respond to every "who should be included in the group" question with an attack on the idea of the group, you get to dodge the real question. I think there were enough anti inclusion and veiled anti arguments here to make the original thread worth pursuing even with the obvious majority viewpoint. If one is firmly in the majority because one has really thought about it, the ignobility of the purpose is debateable. Even it it seems like a pile-on, I always hope that a few of those people will take a moment actually to think beyond given rules and stereotypes about what they're saying, and even though one can get figuratively hoarse repeating, there seem to be some misconceptions about what actually happens in the real world, and how and why decisions are reached.
	__________________ "Sir, I have found you an argument; but I am not obliged to find you an understanding.(Samuel Johnson) The gods are less for their love of praise....(Wendell Berry)

24th November 2012, 09:37 AM	#616
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,073	Originally Posted by Meadmaker I understand that you wish to make this a very narrow discussion, and that was the OP's intent as well. Yes, keeping marriage as only between a man and a woman is discrimination. Everyone gets that, and darned near everyone here thinks it's bad. I reject your premises. However, let's accept them for sake of argument. You are OT regardless. If damn near everyone thought we ought to wear seat belts it would not justify taking a discussion about seat belts off topic. Look, it's really simple, if you don't think there is anything to discuss when it comes to seat belts because there is no disagreement then don't respond in a thread about seat belts. Is that really so difficult to understand? I'm sorry but you are simply OT.
	__________________ Ego, ain't it a bitch? It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. --Adam Smith

30th November 2012, 05:40 AM	#617
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,701	Don't be a wife "I’ve noticed that my visceral anti-marriage animus is particularly strong when I hear twentysomething lesbians talking about their wives and fiancees. Are they really going to mate for life, like swans in sensible shoes? That seems attractive at 35, but at 25 it’s positively Amish."
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22