Best Arguments For and Against Gay Marriage?

corybluefire · 5th November 2012, 05:42 PM

What are the best arguments FOR and AGAINST (lol) gay marriage???

Sledge · 5th November 2012, 05:59 PM

For: people want to get married.
Against: weddings are really boring.

Same as for straight weddings.

truethat · 5th November 2012, 06:15 PM

It's funny I am so pro gay marriage I've stopped being friends with people who are against it. I still have a few born again Christian friends who have come to an impasse with me who will say "It's not my place to judge another, that's between them and God" and I'll let it slide. But someone who speaks out against it is dead to me.

So pro, well because it's not about marriage it's about family. I have a really long post about it that I am loathe to post here because the mods might move it to AAH.

However I have a very logical reason why it shouldn't be allowed that I have never ever heard anyone ever bring up. The only reason why it would be a bad thing to do IMO is that it could increase the possibility of illegal greencard marriages. That's about it.

As for why it's important, because it creates a legally recognized family. A way to consider the significance in this is my situation as a divorced mother who remarried.

My new husband is considered a stepfather to my sons from my first marriage.

But my ex husband has no legally recognized relationship with my son from my second marriage.

As we live in NYC away from family and help, for many years my ex husband was the closest thing to an uncle that my son had. But he's not "anything to him."

My older two call their father "dad" and my husband "daddy" and my younger son calls my ex husband by his first name.

This slight nuance is the same feeling of 'not really being real" in the eyes of the world.

Tsukasa Buddha · 5th November 2012, 06:56 PM

Marriage is a tool of the patriarchy. Gay Marriage is an attempt to heteronormalise gay people into straight people. The LGBT movement used to be about shunning social control and contrivance. Now the wealthy white males at the head of Gay Inc. have decided that making us "legitimate" is our primary focus.

(The above might not reflect views of this poster.)

joesixpack · 5th November 2012, 06:57 PM

I'm totally against gay marriage. I mean, haven't the gays suffered enough throughout history? Why inflict this on them too?

Beerina · 5th November 2012, 07:02 PM

Can't come up with anti-reasons. Even if a god exists who hates it and will throw you into Hell, that's still a piss-poor reason to be against ethically.

TragicMonkey · 5th November 2012, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Marriage is a tool of the patriarchy. Gay Marriage is an attempt to heteronormalise gay people into straight people. The LGBT movement used to be about shunning social control and contrivance. Now the wealthy white males at the head of Gay Inc. have decided that making us "legitimate" is our primary focus.

(The above might not reflect views of this poster.)

Actually, some people do feel that gay marriage is assimilationist. We're supposed to want X because everybody else has X, and X is therefore universally desirable. Join the majority, embrace their values, fit in. Be different, but not too different. Get them to change the rules just a little so we can play their game--instead of overturning the board, or playing our own. Let's all get along, so long as we do the same things and have the same values. Confirm that they're right, theirs is the way to do things, and beg them to let us do things their way, too. Conform, conform, conform.

Meh. I believe gay marriage should be legal--but only because I think everybody deserves an equal chance to screw up their lives with stupid mistakes, the poor bastards.

[/Brian Kinney moment]

Baloney · 5th November 2012, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by Sledge

For: people want to get married.
Against: weddings are really boring.

Same as for straight weddings.

That's a misconception! I just attended the best wedding this weekend. Long weddings are boring, this one was 10 minutes, tops, and I got to hold open doors and such.

Baloney · 5th November 2012, 07:54 PM

Pro: Familial rights
Con: JESUS!!!!!! JESUS! JESUS! JESUS!!!!! BECAUSE JESUUUUUUUUS!!!!!!

Vortigern99 · 5th November 2012, 07:54 PM

Pro: Marriage promotes (not certifies) monogamy.

joesixpack · 5th November 2012, 08:11 PM

Originally Posted by Baloney

That's a misconception! I just attended the best wedding this weekend. Long weddings are boring, this one was 10 minutes, tops, and I got to hold open doors and such.

Yes, short weddings are great for all concerned. Only my third wife recognizes this. Our wedding came in under 15 minutes.

Lowpro · 5th November 2012, 08:17 PM

Pro: Denying legal protection for the union of a gay couple is ethically and morally wrong. Law should protect those couples and their union.

Against: There are no moral or ethical justifications against gay marriage. There are perhaps a few religious arguments, but law cannot support them.

I do have a question. Marriage now is not religious; it is a civil matter. However there could possibly be arguments for a religious union such as predetermined marriage (not often brought up in the USA) or a completely religious union; one that is not determined legally. Can such a union be brought before a court to be recognized since by reciprocation if a law can protect homosexual couples what about "religiously married" couples? Wouldn't the law be neither able to affirm or dissolve this?

Issues like polygamy may come into play. While I have no issue with polygamy if there is an issue of coerced marriage (hah, they all are) such as the case of a cult leader forcing marriage what can law do? If they aren't civil unions then the marriage isn't recognized so are all partied involves legally treated as individuals and not couples/whatever a married couple would be legally protected with? What if such a couple/polygamous group wanted those protections?

Cain · 5th November 2012, 08:27 PM

Pro: Equality.
Con: The family. Children. Gross. The Bible. Tradition. Gross.

ProbeX · 5th November 2012, 08:34 PM

Some heteros who are commitment-phobic gain from gay ppl's legal obstacle ("Sorry, no, I can't marry you honeypot ... not until all the gays in the world get to legally marry.").

Pros: In general, I'm not affected by anyone else's marriage, as much as some people want to insist I am (or will be). Also, I want my niece and people like my niece to be treated with dignity and offered the same basic rights as everyone else.

Cons: Someone somewhere might have negative FEELINGS (how tragic) about the whole idea of gay marriage. I mean, no one should be made to feel uncomfortable, right? People felt uncomfortable about blacks in their neighborhoods (some still do), so I guess they should be allowed to keep black people away, right?

Soapy Sam · 5th November 2012, 11:23 PM

PRO-
If living together makes two folk happy, why put obstacles in their way?

Con- I feel the point of marriage is two fold- protection of children and property rights. Absent adoption or some major leap in reproductive technology, gay marriage in most cases defaults to the question of property and that is already adequately addressed (some places) by civil contracts of one form or another. The major exception is apt to be where gay men who already fathered children want to raise those children themselves. (ie take them away from the mother).
I wonder what happens where two hetero couples with kids split up, the two men preferring to live with each other, the women likewise. Who gets the kids?
Gods I don't know Why would anyone want flaming kids anyway?
I need a beer.
In Scotland, marriage is a civil contract. (Not a sacrament, whatever that is), so I really don't see the point. The Scottish parliament, in preparing legalisation of same sex marriage, seems to me to be wasting time and money on a non issue.

Hell, marry your dog for all I care. But get his agreement in writing if he's under sixteen and if he's over sixteen you're probably just after his money anyway and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Tsukasa Buddha · 6th November 2012, 02:08 AM

Actually, in Scotland you have religious marriage as well as civil marriage, but the only difference is who conducts it, IIRC.

The UK has a strong civil partnership law, so the main issue would be equality, rather than financial or parental. Though I think marriage enters into Visa decisions.

Soapy Sam · 6th November 2012, 02:23 AM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

Actually, in Scotland you have religious marriage as well as civil marriage, but the only difference is who conducts it, IIRC.

The UK has a strong civil partnership law, so the main issue would be equality, rather than financial or parental. Though I think marriage enters into Visa decisions.

It's not (I'm told) a sacrament in the CoS. No idea about the RCC.
Visas- for the UK I don't know. For other nations it certainly does. I can't see a homosexual marriage partner being allowed into Saudi Arabia for example.

Caper · 6th November 2012, 02:40 AM

IS this thread about arguing about gay marriage or just putting forth the best arguments for and against?

Dennis Pager debates Perez Hilton on gay marriage. I DO NOT agree with him and don't buy his arguments.... but they are probably the best.

ponderingturtle · 6th November 2012, 03:21 AM

Originally Posted by Sledge

For: people want to get married.
Against: weddings are really boring.

Same as for straight weddings.

My wedding wasn't. We had board games at the reception.

ponderingturtle · 6th November 2012, 03:27 AM

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

PRO-
If living together makes two folk happy, why put obstacles in their way?

Con- I feel the point of marriage is two fold- protection of children and property rights. Absent adoption or some major leap in reproductive technology, gay marriage in most cases defaults to the question of property and that is already adequately addressed (some places) by civil contracts of one form or another. The major exception is apt to be where gay men who already fathered children want to raise those children themselves. (ie take them away from the mother).
I wonder what happens where two hetero couples with kids split up, the two men preferring to live with each other, the women likewise. Who gets the kids?
Gods I don't know Why would anyone want flaming kids anyway?
I need a beer.
In Scotland, marriage is a civil contract. (Not a sacrament, whatever that is), so I really don't see the point. The Scottish parliament, in preparing legalisation of same sex marriage, seems to me to be wasting time and money on a non issue.

Hell, marry your dog for all I care. But get his agreement in writing if he's under sixteen and if he's over sixteen you're probably just after his money anyway and you should be ashamed of yourself.

In the US the children and property issues are I feel some of the weaker ones. Your children are always your family as recognized by law, your partner is only when married. I seriously wonder what % of the 1100 effects marriage has fit into those categories.

TragicMonkey · 6th November 2012, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by Vortigern99

Pro: Marriage promotes (not certifies) monogamy.

So? Is monogamy necessarily good? Not everybody buys into that assumption.

angrysoba · 6th November 2012, 04:58 AM

For: Pay less tax
Against: The nagging, the rows, the mother-in-law

ponderingturtle · 6th November 2012, 05:09 AM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

So? Is monogamy necessarily good? Not everybody buys into that assumption.

Also given rates of cheating it seems not terribly effective. So if the best argument you have is that it promotes something of questionable value ineffectively then you have a poor argument.

Myself I see that most people want their partner to be legally their family and next of kin. Marriage is what does that.

Alt+F4 · 6th November 2012, 05:15 AM

Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha

The UK has a strong civil partnership law, so the main issue would be equality, rather than financial or parental. Though I think marriage enters into Visa decisions.

Wrong thread. This one is about gay marriage which does not exist in the UK.

joesixpack · 6th November 2012, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

My wedding wasn't. We had board games at the reception.

No one thinks their own wedding was boring.

joesixpack · 6th November 2012, 07:06 AM

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

In the US the children and property issues are I feel some of the weaker ones. Your children are always your family as recognized by law, your partner is only when married. I seriously wonder what % of the 1100 effects marriage has fit into those categories.

This is not automatically so with the children of same sex couples. For example, in the case of one lesbian couple who had a child, the court defaulted to the biological mother as sole custody, completely voiding any of her former partners parental rights..

ponderingturtle · 6th November 2012, 07:19 AM

Originally Posted by joesixpack

This is not automatically so with the children of same sex couples. For example, in the case of one lesbian couple who had a child, the court defaulted to the biological mother as sole custody, completely voiding any of her former partners parental rights..

True that should say biological children. She should have adopted her partners kids.

Dessi · 6th November 2012, 08:00 AM

For: In the US, constitutionally guaranteed rights of equal protection and due process, 12 prior supreme court rulings that marriage is a fundamental right and cannot be taken away without serving some compelling state interest. So far, opponents of same-gender marriage haven't identified that compelling state interest, could not substantiate the lofty claim same-gender marriage "destroys the fabric of society" (whatever that means), could not identify any perceived harm caused by same-gender marriage, and can't distinguish their argument from plain old irrational prejudice against gays. So the constitutional argument is already lopsided far in favor of same-gender marriage rights.

Everywhere else, there's no real moral distinction between same-gender couples and opposite-gender couples. Most of the purported moral distinctions, like ability to procreate, are 1) selectively applied to gay couples, never applied to straight couples marriage rights, 2) red herring at best, since procreation is not a prerequisite to marry. Focusing on the gender of one of the partners is no more interesting focusing on whether couples have the same or different colored eyes, or whether one of the partners is left-handed. There's just no rational basis for treating them unequally and depriving a whole class of people their right to marry.

Against: Two dudes kissing is really really gross!

Recovering Agnostic · 6th November 2012, 08:45 AM

I'm going to try to answer this sensibly with proper arguments from each side. FSM knows, I'm all in favour, and I think the arguments against are poor and often little more than specious figleaves for rampant bigotry, but the question's about the best arguments. 3 from each side, in no particular order:

For:
1. Simplicity of legislation - same term for all relationships
2. Truly equal recognition of all relationships
3. Marriage has no inherent link to procreation, but is a public commitment - surely to be encouraged

Against:
a. Changing the plain historic understanding of marriage
b. Rights can be equalised without redefining existing words
c. Appropriate for government to withhold rights from damaging/immoral practices

b and c can't both be used, but depending on the context (i.e. whether civil partnerships are an option, and what rights they confer), you can choose one or the other. It goes a bit runny once you try to support the "damaging/immoral" bit, but it's still one of the better arguments. I've left procreation and religion out, because although they always get dragged into the argument, even special pleading on astronomical scales can't disguise the sheer hypocrisy when infertile couples are married all the time, both in the church and civil ceremonies, without a peep of protest.

SumDood · 6th November 2012, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by Dessi

Against: Two dudes kissing is really really gross!

My wife disagrees with you there.

ravdin · 6th November 2012, 09:16 AM

For: gay people deserve the same civil rights as anyone else.
Against: Ewwwwwww!

I see Dessi beat me to it.

RandFan · 6th November 2012, 09:46 AM

Argument for: Human decency. Moral sense of right and wrong.
Against: Irrational fear that I might be homosexual.

Spindrift · 6th November 2012, 09:55 AM

For: Economic boost from all those weddings.
Against: Hasn't always been that great for hetero's, why would the gays be any different?

AK-Dave · 6th November 2012, 10:02 AM

I don't think gay people should have rights that straight people don't have.

Spindrift · 6th November 2012, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by AK-Dave

I don't think gay people should have rights that straight people don't have.

Such as?

joesixpack · 6th November 2012, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by Spindrift

Such as?

Having gay weddings. Straight people won't be able to have gay weddings. How can you allow this sort of "jim crow" law to go unchallenged?

Alt+F4 · 6th November 2012, 10:50 AM

Originally Posted by RandFan

Against: Irrational fear that I might be homosexual.

Hehe, indeed. It's like seeing a gay wedding or living next to a gay married couple might cause a straight person to "catch the gay"....kinda like the flu.

Corsair 115 · 6th November 2012, 11:02 AM

PRO: Larger market for divorce lawyers.
CON: Larger market for divorce lawyers.

AK-Dave · 6th November 2012, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Spindrift

Such as?

Marriage, for one. One group of people should not have special rights that other people don't get. It's one of the principles my country was founded on. If gay people are given the right to get married, then the same rights should be extended to straight people.

johnny karate · 6th November 2012, 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

Hehe, indeed. It's like seeing a gay wedding or living next to a gay married couple might cause a straight person to "catch the gay"....kinda like the flu.

I think those who fear they might "catch the gay" have probably already got it.

I can think of no other explanation for why someone who purports to be straight would spend so much time thinking about homosexuals.

It's like someone claiming to hate stamp-collecting but can't stop talking about stamps.

5th November 2012, 05:42 PM	#1
corybluefire Scholar Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 55	Best Arguments For and Against Gay Marriage? What are the best arguments FOR and AGAINST (lol) gay marriage???
corybluefire Scholar Join Date: Mar 2012 Posts: 55

5th November 2012, 05:59 PM	#2
Sledge Grammaton Cleric Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Swingin' on a star Posts: 7,123	For: people want to get married. Against: weddings are really boring. Same as for straight weddings.
	__________________ "The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.

5th November 2012, 06:15 PM	#3
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,625	It's funny I am so pro gay marriage I've stopped being friends with people who are against it. I still have a few born again Christian friends who have come to an impasse with me who will say "It's not my place to judge another, that's between them and God" and I'll let it slide. But someone who speaks out against it is dead to me. So pro, well because it's not about marriage it's about family. I have a really long post about it that I am loathe to post here because the mods might move it to AAH. However I have a very logical reason why it shouldn't be allowed that I have never ever heard anyone ever bring up. The only reason why it would be a bad thing to do IMO is that it could increase the possibility of illegal greencard marriages. That's about it. As for why it's important, because it creates a legally recognized family. A way to consider the significance in this is my situation as a divorced mother who remarried. My new husband is considered a stepfather to my sons from my first marriage. But my ex husband has no legally recognized relationship with my son from my second marriage. As we live in NYC away from family and help, for many years my ex husband was the closest thing to an uncle that my son had. But he's not "anything to him." My older two call their father "dad" and my husband "daddy" and my younger son calls my ex husband by his first name. This slight nuance is the same feeling of 'not really being real" in the eyes of the world.
truethat Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 8,625	__________________ “Do not argue with an idiot they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.” ― Mark Twain

5th November 2012, 06:56 PM	#4
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 9,899	Marriage is a tool of the patriarchy. Gay Marriage is an attempt to heteronormalise gay people into straight people. The LGBT movement used to be about shunning social control and contrivance. Now the wealthy white males at the head of Gay Inc. have decided that making us "legitimate" is our primary focus. (The above might not reflect views of this poster.)
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

5th November 2012, 06:57 PM	#5
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,388	I'm totally against gay marriage. I mean, haven't the gays suffered enough throughout history? Why inflict this on them too?
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

5th November 2012, 07:02 PM	#6
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Can't come up with anti-reasons. Even if a god exists who hates it and will throw you into Hell, that's still a piss-poor reason to be against ethically.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

5th November 2012, 07:41 PM	#7
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,070	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha Marriage is a tool of the patriarchy. Gay Marriage is an attempt to heteronormalise gay people into straight people. The LGBT movement used to be about shunning social control and contrivance. Now the wealthy white males at the head of Gay Inc. have decided that making us "legitimate" is our primary focus. (The above might not reflect views of this poster.) Actually, some people do feel that gay marriage is assimilationist. We're supposed to want X because everybody else has X, and X is therefore universally desirable. Join the majority, embrace their values, fit in. Be different, but not too different. Get them to change the rules just a little so we can play their game--instead of overturning the board, or playing our own. Let's all get along, so long as we do the same things and have the same values. Confirm that they're right, theirs is the way to do things, and beg them to let us do things their way, too. Conform, conform, conform. Meh. I believe gay marriage should be legal--but only because I think everybody deserves an equal chance to screw up their lives with stupid mistakes, the poor bastards. [/Brian Kinney moment]
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

5th November 2012, 07:52 PM	#8
Baloney Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: America! (F, yeah!) Posts: 666	Originally Posted by Sledge For: people want to get married. Against: weddings are really boring. Same as for straight weddings. That's a misconception! I just attended the best wedding this weekend. Long weddings are boring, this one was 10 minutes, tops, and I got to hold open doors and such.
	__________________ _{When I think about woo, I detect myself.}

5th November 2012, 07:54 PM	#9
Baloney Muse Join Date: Apr 2010 Location: America! (F, yeah!) Posts: 666	Pro: Familial rights Con: JESUS!!!!!! JESUS! JESUS! JESUS!!!!! BECAUSE JESUUUUUUUUS!!!!!!
	__________________ _{When I think about woo, I detect myself.}

5th November 2012, 07:54 PM	#10
Vortigern99 Philosopher Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 5,016	Pro: Marriage promotes (not certifies) monogamy.
	__________________ "I'm 'willing to admit' any fact that can be shown to be evidential and certain." -- Vortigern99 / Noah D. Henson "One thing we've learned (and the Internet confirms this) is that humans will screw just about anything." -- Theagenes

5th November 2012, 08:11 PM	#11
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,388	Originally Posted by Baloney That's a misconception! I just attended the best wedding this weekend. Long weddings are boring, this one was 10 minutes, tops, and I got to hold open doors and such. Yes, short weddings are great for all concerned. Only my third wife recognizes this. Our wedding came in under 15 minutes.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

5th November 2012, 08:17 PM	#12
Lowpro Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Birmingham, AL Posts: 4,520	Pro: Denying legal protection for the union of a gay couple is ethically and morally wrong. Law should protect those couples and their union. Against: There are no moral or ethical justifications against gay marriage. There are perhaps a few religious arguments, but law cannot support them. I do have a question. Marriage now is not religious; it is a civil matter. However there could possibly be arguments for a religious union such as predetermined marriage (not often brought up in the USA) or a completely religious union; one that is not determined legally. Can such a union be brought before a court to be recognized since by reciprocation if a law can protect homosexual couples what about "religiously married" couples? Wouldn't the law be neither able to affirm or dissolve this? Issues like polygamy may come into play. While I have no issue with polygamy if there is an issue of coerced marriage (hah, they all are) such as the case of a cult leader forcing marriage what can law do? If they aren't civil unions then the marriage isn't recognized so are all partied involves legally treated as individuals and not couples/whatever a married couple would be legally protected with? What if such a couple/polygamous group wanted those protections?
	__________________ "If I actually believed that Jesus was coming to end the world in 2050, I'd be preparing by stocking up on timber and nails" - PZ Myers

5th November 2012, 08:27 PM	#13
Cain Straussian Join Date: May 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 6,935	Pro: Equality. Con: The family. Children. Gross. The Bible. Tradition. Gross.
	__________________ *Arrested Development* is coming back! Michael (to GOB): Get rid of the Seaward. Lucille: I’ll leave when I’m good and ready.

5th November 2012, 08:34 PM	#14
ProbeX Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,443	Some heteros who are commitment-phobic gain from gay ppl's legal obstacle ("Sorry, no, I can't marry you honeypot ... not until all the gays in the world get to legally marry."). Pros: In general, I'm not affected by anyone else's marriage, as much as some people want to insist I am (or will be). Also, I want my niece and people like my niece to be treated with dignity and offered the same basic rights as everyone else. Cons: Someone somewhere might have negative FEELINGS (how tragic) about the whole idea of gay marriage. I mean, no one should be made to feel uncomfortable, right? People felt uncomfortable about blacks in their neighborhoods (some still do), so I guess they should be allowed to keep black people away, right?
ProbeX Graduate Poster Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 1,443	__________________ I promise to have faith. Just show me the evidence first.

5th November 2012, 11:23 PM	#15
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	PRO- If living together makes two folk happy, why put obstacles in their way? Con- I feel the point of marriage is two fold- protection of children and property rights. Absent adoption or some major leap in reproductive technology, gay marriage in most cases defaults to the question of property and that is already adequately addressed (some places) by civil contracts of one form or another. The major exception is apt to be where gay men who already fathered children want to raise those children themselves. (ie take them away from the mother). I wonder what happens where two hetero couples with kids split up, the two men preferring to live with each other, the women likewise. Who gets the kids? Gods I don't know Why would anyone want flaming kids anyway? I need a beer. In Scotland, marriage is a civil contract. (Not a sacrament, whatever that is), so I really don't see the point. The Scottish parliament, in preparing legalisation of same sex marriage, seems to me to be wasting time and money on a non issue. Hell, marry your dog for all I care. But get his agreement in writing if he's under sixteen and if he's over sixteen you're probably just after his money anyway and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885

6th November 2012, 02:08 AM	#16
Tsukasa Buddha Other (please write in) Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: NeverLand Posts: 9,899	Actually, in Scotland you have religious marriage as well as civil marriage, but the only difference is who conducts it, IIRC. The UK has a strong civil partnership law, so the main issue would be equality, rather than financial or parental. Though I think marriage enters into Visa decisions.
	__________________ As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn

6th November 2012, 02:23 AM	#17
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha Actually, in Scotland you have religious marriage as well as civil marriage, but the only difference is who conducts it, IIRC. The UK has a strong civil partnership law, so the main issue would be equality, rather than financial or parental. Though I think marriage enters into Visa decisions. It's not (I'm told) a sacrament in the CoS. No idea about the RCC. Visas- for the UK I don't know. For other nations it certainly does. I can't see a homosexual marriage partner being allowed into Saudi Arabia for example.
Soapy Sam NLH Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 25,885

6th November 2012, 02:40 AM	#18
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946	IS this thread about arguing about gay marriage or just putting forth the best arguments for and against? Dennis Pager debates Perez Hilton on gay marriage. I DO NOT agree with him and don't buy his arguments.... but they are probably the best.
Caper Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 2,946

6th November 2012, 03:21 AM	#19
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,424	Originally Posted by Sledge For: people want to get married. Against: weddings are really boring. Same as for straight weddings. My wedding wasn't. We had board games at the reception.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

6th November 2012, 03:27 AM	#20
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,424	Originally Posted by Soapy Sam PRO- If living together makes two folk happy, why put obstacles in their way? Con- I feel the point of marriage is two fold- protection of children and property rights. Absent adoption or some major leap in reproductive technology, gay marriage in most cases defaults to the question of property and that is already adequately addressed (some places) by civil contracts of one form or another. The major exception is apt to be where gay men who already fathered children want to raise those children themselves. (ie take them away from the mother). I wonder what happens where two hetero couples with kids split up, the two men preferring to live with each other, the women likewise. Who gets the kids? Gods I don't know Why would anyone want flaming kids anyway? I need a beer. In Scotland, marriage is a civil contract. (Not a sacrament, whatever that is), so I really don't see the point. The Scottish parliament, in preparing legalisation of same sex marriage, seems to me to be wasting time and money on a non issue. Hell, marry your dog for all I care. But get his agreement in writing if he's under sixteen and if he's over sixteen you're probably just after his money anyway and you should be ashamed of yourself. In the US the children and property issues are I feel some of the weaker ones. Your children are always your family as recognized by law, your partner is only when married. I seriously wonder what % of the 1100 effects marriage has fit into those categories.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

6th November 2012, 04:52 AM	#21
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Pither Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 30,070	Originally Posted by Vortigern99 Pro: Marriage promotes (not certifies) monogamy. So? Is monogamy necessarily good? Not everybody buys into that assumption.
	__________________ One cannot expect wisdom to flow from a pumpkin.

6th November 2012, 04:58 AM	#22
angrysoba Philosopher Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 8,515	For: Pay less tax Against: The nagging, the rows, the mother-in-law
	Last edited by angrysoba; 6th November 2012 at 04:59 AM.

6th November 2012, 05:09 AM	#23
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,424	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey So? Is monogamy necessarily good? Not everybody buys into that assumption. Also given rates of cheating it seems not terribly effective. So if the best argument you have is that it promotes something of questionable value ineffectively then you have a poor argument. Myself I see that most people want their partner to be legally their family and next of kin. Marriage is what does that.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

6th November 2012, 05:15 AM	#24
Alt+F4 diabolical globalist Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Department of Abandoned Places Posts: 9,780	Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha The UK has a strong civil partnership law, so the main issue would be equality, rather than financial or parental. Though I think marriage enters into Visa decisions. Wrong thread. This one is about gay marriage which does not exist in the UK.
	__________________ "My folks touched a lot of kids." - Jerry Sandusky

6th November 2012, 06:57 AM	#25
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,388	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle My wedding wasn't. We had board games at the reception. No one thinks their own wedding was boring.
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

6th November 2012, 07:06 AM	#26
joesixpack Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Edge of the continent, Pacific county, WA Posts: 3,388	Originally Posted by ponderingturtle In the US the children and property issues are I feel some of the weaker ones. Your children are always your family as recognized by law, your partner is only when married. I seriously wonder what % of the 1100 effects marriage has fit into those categories. This is not automatically so with the children of same sex couples. For example, in the case of one lesbian couple who had a child, the court defaulted to the biological mother as sole custody, completely voiding any of her former partners parental rights..
	__________________ I never got in trouble by bein' ignorant, I always got in trouble 'cause I thought I wasn't.

6th November 2012, 07:19 AM	#27
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,424	Originally Posted by joesixpack This is not automatically so with the children of same sex couples. For example, in the case of one lesbian couple who had a child, the court defaulted to the biological mother as sole custody, completely voiding any of her former partners parental rights.. True that should say biological children. She should have adopted her partners kids.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

6th November 2012, 08:00 AM	#28
Dessi Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Omaha, NE Posts: 1,906	For: In the US, constitutionally guaranteed rights of equal protection and due process, 12 prior supreme court rulings that marriage is a fundamental right and cannot be taken away without serving some compelling state interest. So far, opponents of same-gender marriage haven't identified that compelling state interest, could not substantiate the lofty claim same-gender marriage "destroys the fabric of society" (whatever that means), could not identify any perceived harm caused by same-gender marriage, and can't distinguish their argument from plain old irrational prejudice against gays. So the constitutional argument is already lopsided far in favor of same-gender marriage rights. Everywhere else, there's no real moral distinction between same-gender couples and opposite-gender couples. Most of the purported moral distinctions, like ability to procreate, are 1) selectively applied to gay couples, never applied to straight couples marriage rights, 2) red herring at best, since procreation is not a prerequisite to marry. Focusing on the gender of one of the partners is no more interesting focusing on whether couples have the same or different colored eyes, or whether one of the partners is left-handed. There's just no rational basis for treating them unequally and depriving a whole class of people their right to marry. Against: Two dudes kissing is really really gross!
	__________________ >^.^< Last edited by Dessi; 6th November 2012 at 08:11 AM.

6th November 2012, 08:45 AM	#29
Recovering Agnostic Back Pew Heckler Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 367	I'm going to try to answer this sensibly with proper arguments from each side. FSM knows, I'm all in favour, and I think the arguments against are poor and often little more than specious figleaves for rampant bigotry, but the question's about the best arguments. 3 from each side, in no particular order: For: 1. Simplicity of legislation - same term for all relationships 2. Truly equal recognition of all relationships 3. Marriage has no inherent link to procreation, but is a public commitment - surely to be encouraged Against: a. Changing the plain historic understanding of marriage b. Rights can be equalised without redefining existing words c. Appropriate for government to withhold rights from damaging/immoral practices b and c can't both be used, but depending on the context (i.e. whether civil partnerships are an option, and what rights they confer), you can choose one or the other. It goes a bit runny once you try to support the "damaging/immoral" bit, but it's still one of the better arguments. I've left procreation and religion out, because although they always get dragged into the argument, even special pleading on astronomical scales can't disguise the sheer hypocrisy when infertile couples are married all the time, both in the church and civil ceremonies, without a peep of protest.
	__________________ My glorified brain dump, ranting space and navel fluff collection The art and science of asking questions is the source of all knowledge - Thomas Berger

6th November 2012, 08:51 AM	#30
SumDood Muse Join Date: May 2008 Location: Alabama Posts: 706	Originally Posted by Dessi Against: Two dudes kissing is really really gross! My wife disagrees with you there.
	__________________ All that is necessary for ignorance to triumph is for intelligent men to do nothing.

6th November 2012, 09:16 AM	#31
ravdin Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: San Francisco, CA Posts: 3,556	For: gay people deserve the same civil rights as anyone else. Against: Ewwwwwww! I see Dessi beat me to it.
	__________________ If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak. -Jayne Cobb Believe what you're told. There would be chaos if everyone thought for themselves. -Top Dog slogan

6th November 2012, 09:46 AM	#32
RandFan Mormon Atheist Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Southern California Posts: 53,182	Argument for: Human decency. Moral sense of right and wrong. Against: Irrational fear that I might be homosexual.
	__________________ 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

6th November 2012, 09:55 AM	#33
Spindrift Enturbulator Extraordinaire Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Right here! Posts: 8,449	For: Economic boost from all those weddings. Against: Hasn't always been that great for hetero's, why would the gays be any different?
	__________________ I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.

6th November 2012, 10:02 AM	#34
AK-Dave Muse Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 576	I don't think gay people should have rights that straight people don't have.
	__________________ All those who fight monsters inevitably become one. Last edited by AK-Dave; 6th November 2012 at 10:03 AM. Reason: Accidentally a word out.

6th November 2012, 10:18 AM	#35
Spindrift Enturbulator Extraordinaire Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Right here! Posts: 8,449	Originally Posted by AK-Dave I don't think gay people should have rights that straight people don't have. Such as?
	__________________ I've always believed that cluelessness evolved as an adaptation to allow the truly appalling to live with themselves. - G. B. Trudeau A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. - Kay, Men in Black.