Best Arguments For and Against Gay Marriage?

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

And yet there are all kinds of laws against it and you need to be able to justify your actions when you do discriminate.

there are also many laws and practices that specifically demand it.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

I get that, but they are free to marry someone of the opposite gender just like everyone else, so I don't see how they are being discriminated against.

Loving v Virgina. Blacks were free to marry blacks. So, what is the problem with anti-miscegenation laws? Seriously? So long as a black person can marry another black person who cares what the law says? Again, I'm dead serious. I don't think you can answer that question without directly addressing the rights of gays and lesbians to marry the person of their choice.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

there are also many laws and practices that specifically demand it.

At the end of the day you need a compelling reason to discriminate based on sex. What is your compelling reason?

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by RandFan

That it happens frequently doesn't make it okay.

agreed, doesnt make it wrong either.

Originally Posted by RandFan

BTW: People can legally discriminate based on the color of one's skin (see the right of association).

does that apply to white people as well? I didn't know that... would you say that is ok? I do know there are racist laws like affirmitive action in place.

Originally Posted by RandFan

In fact, absent a compelling reason, discriminating based on sex and/or the color of one's skin is illegal in many cases.

its also required in many cases, however I categorically think this is wrong in regards to skin color.

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by RandFan

At the end of the day you need a compelling reason to discriminate based on sex. What is your compelling reason?

Depends on the situation

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Loving v Virgina. Blacks were free to marry blacks. So, what is the problem with anti-miscegenation laws? Seriously? So long as a black person can marry another black person who cares what the law says? Again, I'm dead serious. I don't think you can answer that question without directly addressing the rights of gays and lesbians to marry the person of their choice.

Fair enough, but then anyone should be able to marry whoever and however many people they want for whatever reason. would you agree?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

I get that, but they are free to marry someone of the opposite gender just like everyone else, so I don't see how they are being discriminated against.

Just like they were free to marry someone of the same race so there was no discrimination.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

does that apply to white people as well? I didn't know that... would you say that is ok? I do know there are racist laws like affirmitive action in place.

I'm not an advocate of affirmative action but I know that there is a compelling reason for such laws. The question in the instance of affirmative action isn't whether it's discrimination, it's whether or not there is a compelling reason and if the laws can address that reason (are the effective?).

Quote:

its also required in many cases, however I categorically think this is wrong in regards to skin color.

But, aside from special pleading, I don't know why you think it okay to allow heterosexuals to marry those they love but not okay for gays and lesbians to marry those they love.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

Fair enough, but then anyone should be able to marry whoever and however many people they want for whatever reason. would you agree?

As long as they are all consenting adults, yes, I would agree.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

Depends on the situation

Gays and lesbians getting married. That situation.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

Well, it would seem to me that Marriage has been about a man and a woman getting together with the reasonable expectation that it would lead to children.

So there is no reason to let the sterile marry. Are you against my grandfather undermining traditional marriage by remarrying a 70 year old woman? I can say there was no reasonable expectation that they would have kids.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

Are you seriously seggesting that there is absolutely no situation where it is justified to discriminate based on sex?

I agree that frequency and tradition do not make right. they also don't make wrong either.

There are times it is and times it isn't. There are specific legal tests for such things. Given that prop 8 supporters did not mount a defense it seems that the legal case for it is rather lacking.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

Fair enough, but then anyone should be able to marry whoever and however many people they want for whatever reason. would you agree?

1.) I've answered this question and given you my reasons which you have ignored (see below). 2.) You've been asked a followup question to your "group" marriage premise, which again, you've ignored (see below).

1. Re group marriage. I honestly don't know. I'm not against it but there are a number of problems that need to be addressed. Let's have those who want group marriage to fight for that just as gays and lesbians have done. Let's have them seek redress before the courts and have experts testify on both sides of the question just as they did for Gay Marriage.
2. Let's assume you and I are both against group marriage. Does it then follow that heterosexual marriage should be outlawed?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

does that apply to white people as well? I didn't know that... would you say that is ok?

Both are free to marry someone of their own race and blocked from matting outside it. The law was applied to everyone.

It was determined that discriminating in who can marry on the basis of race is not legally supportable. Sex based laws have similarly been struck down. Which is not surprising when no legal defense is offered.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

Fair enough, but then anyone should be able to marry whoever and however many people they want for whatever reason. would you agree?

You are the only one bringing in polygamy to this debate, why do you keep doing that when you ignore all the demonstrated cases of how it is different?

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

Are you seriously seggesting that there is absolutely no situation where it is justified to discriminate based on sex?

You are talking about situations in which people of opposite gender do not wish to be together. There is a big difference between telling a bunch of guys, "Sorry, the women's locker room is off limits to you because they don't feel comfortable sharing that space with you", and telling two people, "We're sorry, but you can't have your union recognized by the state because other people don't wan't you together". What you're proposing is more like telling men and women at a private gym that they can't freely share a locker room even if they all choose to do so.

Quote:

I agree that frequency and tradition do not make right. they also don't make wrong either.

Then why do you keep appealing to them?

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Gays and lesbians getting married. That situation.

Just for the record here, personally, I don't care one way or the other about marriage or marriage laws. I feel anyone should be able to enter into a marriage contract with whomever and however many people they want. marriage is essentially a business contract, and a crappy one at that.

That being said, this thread is about the best For and Against arguments for gay marriage. I have posted and am defending the arguments I think are the most compelling. in spite of my personal position, I feel these are solid arguments and have yet to hear a good rebuttal.

As for gays and lesbians getting married, no one is stopping them. They can marry anyone else, provided they are of age, a different gender, and only 1 person. But we are going in circles here. Gays and Lesbians are asking that the definition of marriage be changed, the onus should be on them to provide the reason as to why that should be so. it seems to me, in the spirit of democracy, they should push for civil uniouns and get all the same rights while giving their opponents what they want as well. To me that seems like a no brainer.

I don't buy the discrimination argument based on sexual preference. I dont agree that it is bigoted to think marriage is about raisng families and protecting the family unit.

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

You are the only one bringing in polygamy to this debate, why do you keep doing that when you ignore all the demonstrated cases of how it is different?

This debate is about changing the definition of marriage. changing 1 man and 1 woman is not much different than changing it from people to other people. I know you want to make it sound complicated, but it really is not. The solutions to whatever problems may arise could easily be sorted out.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

Well, it would seem to me that Marriage has been about a man and a woman getting together with the reasonable expectation that it would lead to children.

Yeah, that was AvalonXQ's "best argument". Here's my reply to him"

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Awesome! Now all we have to do is pass laws that require prospective spouses to sign a government contract in which they promise that they will at least try to have children. We can't have people wasting the state's time by entering into marriages that aren't going to produce children. Let's make them take a medical examination to first ensure that they are both physically capable of producing children, then we'll make them promise to have a child within, say, five years or else their marriage will no longer be recognized by the state. If one or both parties can't have children for whatever reason, then there's no point even recognizing their relationship as far as the state is concerned.

So can we all assume that you are just as opposed to marriages between heterosexual couples who either can't, or chose not to have children?

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

You are talking about situations in which people of opposite gender do not wish to be together. There is a big difference between telling a bunch of guys, "Sorry, the women's locker room is off limits to you because they don't feel comfortable sharing that space with you", and telling two people, "We're sorry, but you can't have your union recognized by the state because other people don't wan't you together". What you're proposing is more like telling men and women at a private gym that they can't freely share a locker room even if they all choose to do so.


Then why do you keep appealing to them?

No, what i am saying is, there is no reason to change the definition of 'Mens Lockeroom' and 'Womens lockeroom' just because some men and women want to share a lockeroom somewhere.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

Just for the record here, personally, I don't care one way or the other about marriage or marriage laws. I feel anyone should be able to enter into a marriage contract with whomever and however many people they want. marriage is essentially a business contract, and a crappy one at that.

So you don't even know that marriage isn't a contract but a status you enter into with another. Here is a hint, no.contract will make it easier to get a visa but marriage will. No contract will effect who had paternal rights and obligations for your kid but marriage will.

If you want to debate marriage you should learn more about it.

[Merton]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

Thats a fair point. So would you say that any two people then, who choose to live together should be able to get the benefits of a marriage?

Any two people of contractual age, yes.

Fair enough. So would you say that any group of people who choose to live together should be able to get the benefits of marriage?

Yes again, with the same caveat as before.

Actually, ponderingturtle makes an excellent argument against polygamy in that its practical application may be too complex to codify as law. I'm not sure that this problem is unavoidable, but assuming it is, I think limiting marriage to two individuals would be justified.

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Yeah, that was AvalonXQ's "best argument". Here's my reply to him"

I don't see how 'reasonable expectation' translates into an absolute demand of children. It's simply playing the odds. Pretty good odds too.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

I dont agree that it is bigoted to think marriage is about raisng families and protecting the family unit.

If someone uses that argument selectively against gays and lesbians, but has no problem with heterosexual couples marrying who are unable to, or choose not to have children, then I can think of no other way to describe this discrimination other than "bigotry".

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So you don't even know that marriage isn't a contract but a status you enter into with another. Here is a hint, no.contract will make it easier to get a visa but marriage will. No contract will effect who had paternal rights and obligations for your kid but marriage will.

If you want to debate marriage you should learn more about it.

None of those things you said invalidate my postion, but thanks for the eblightenment.

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

If someone uses that argument selectively against gays and lesbians, but has no problem with heterosexual couples marrying who are unable to, or choose not to have children, then I can think of no other way to describe this discrimination other than "bigotry".

So if someone were to oppose two roomates getting married in order to reap the benefits, you would say that is bigotry?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Merton

Yes again, with the same caveat as before.

Actually, ponderingturtle makes an excellent argument against polygamy in that its practical application may be too complex to codify as law. I'm not sure that this problem is unavoidable, but assuming it is, I think limiting marriage to two individuals would be justified.

It is not nessacarily too complex, just very complex and has the potential to effect everyones marriage. Gay marriage is legally simple and will not impact my marriage.

I think it could be solved but it will require a lot of work and either be a separate institution or dramatically change marriage.

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by Merton

Yes again, with the same caveat as before.

Actually, ponderingturtle makes an excellent argument against polygamy in that its practical application may be too complex to codify as law. I'm not sure that this problem is unavoidable, but assuming it is, I think limiting marriage to two individuals would be justified.

Not only is not not too complicated, but happens in other countries in the world all the time. Hell, pre-nups can get pretty complicated too, but so what? if we are talking about 'rights' here, I hardly see how that should be an issue.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

That being said, this thread is about the best For and Against arguments for gay marriage. I have posted and am defending the arguments I think are the most compelling. in spite of my personal position, I feel these are solid arguments and have yet to hear a good rebuttal.

I've yet to see a valid argument.

Quote:

As for gays and lesbians getting married, no one is stopping them. They can marry anyone else, provided they are of age, a different gender, and only 1 person.

Anti-misegnination laws, blacks and whites can get married provided they are of age, a different race and only 1 person.

Quote:

But we are going in circles here. Gays and Lesbians are asking that the definition of marriage be changed,

IOW: Tradition.

Quote:

...the onus should be on them to provide the reason as to why that should be so.

Leaving the presumption (begging the question) aside. Plaintiffs have made formal arguments in support of their right to marry. Please see Perry v. Brown. The court found in their favor. And the silly arguments were laughed out of court.

Quote:

I don't buy the discrimination argument based on sexual preference. I dont agree that it is bigoted to think marriage is about raisng families and protecting the family unit.

Please watch the Prop 8 trial reenactment. The finding of fact was that gays and lesbians form family units and that gay marriage would benefit these family units without harming other family units immediately. If you really care about families, then being pro gay marriage is really your only choice.

BTW: I want to emphasize something, the plaintiffs own expert witness testified that gay marriage would in fact improve the lives of gay and lesbian families. When asked what evidence there was that gay marriage would harm other families none was presented.

Let me bullet this.

• Lot's of exert testimony that allowing gays and lesbians to marry would be beneficial to their families.
• No evidence that gay marriage would harm heterosexual marriages.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

So if someone were to oppose two roomates getting married in order to reap the benefits, you would say that is bigotry?

Some benefits have stricter rules about how they apply. See investigations into suspected green card marriages.

So they could get into trouble for fraud in that case.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

No, what i am saying is, there is no reason to change the definition of 'Mens Lockeroom' and 'Womens lockeroom' just because some men and women want to share a lockeroom somewhere.

So you're OK with "men's locker room", "women's locker room" and "co-gender locker room", all as sub-categories of "locker room"? Are you OK with "heterosexual marriage" and "homosexual marriage" as sub-categories of "marriage"?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

No, what i am saying is, there is no reason to change the definition of 'Mens Lockeroom' and 'Womens lockeroom' just because some men and women want to share a lockeroom somewhere.

• Are there people who are being demonstrably harmed by these designations?
• If gays and lesbians have a compelling reason to grant them the right to marry people of the same sex then what is your compelling reason to deny them?

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

It is not nessacarily too complex, just very complex and has the potential to effect everyones marriage. Gay marriage is legally simple and will not impact my marriage.

I think it could be solved but it will require a lot of work and either be a separate institution or dramatically change marriage.

I don't think its too complex, thats what lawyers are for. I also don't see how it would drastically change marriage. An agreement entered by consenting adults should be fine.

It's like saying a business merger between more than two companies would drastically change the definition of business mergers. I don't agree that that follows.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

Not only is not not too complicated, but happens in other countries in the world all the time. Hell, pre-nups can get pretty complicated too, but so what? if we are talking about 'rights' here, I hardly see how that should be an issue.

It doesn't happen in any country that has anything like our definition of marriage and womens rights though.

Marriage in the us and marriage in saudi Arabia are rather different. For example american women are allowed to drive and not beaten for getting raped.

You also can marry an 8 year old and not get into legal hot water, so clearly no problems with that either.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

So if someone were to oppose two roomates getting married in order to reap the benefits, you would say that is bigotry?

Non sequitur. Gays and lesbians get married for many reasons. Being a gay person, falling in love and wanting to marry the person you love isn't the same as marrying to get free stuff (which btw ISN'T against the law and you know that).

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Are there people who are being demonstrably harmed by these designations?

Yes, men and women who feel they should have the right to use any lockeroom they want without being discriminated against.

Originally Posted by RandFan

If gays and lesbians have a compelling reason to grant them the right to marry people of the same sex then what is your compelling reason to deny them?

There is a law against it. What is their 'compelling reason'? and how does it differ from the one I provided about the lockerooms?

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

I don't see how 'reasonable expectation' translates into an absolute demand of children. It's simply playing the odds. Pretty good odds too.

The only reason that it's a "reasonable expectation" is because it's common. "Reasonable expectation" isn't "obligation". In many Christian families there is a "reasonable expectation" that their children will marry another Christian. Why should this prevent a person from marrying a Hindu, Sikh or Muslim whom they are in love with?

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

It doesn't happen in any country that has anything like our definition of marriage and womens rights though.

Marriage in the us and marriage in saudi Arabia are rather different. For example american women are allowed to drive and not beaten for getting raped.

You also can marry an 8 year old and not get into legal hot water, so clearly no problems with that either.

agreed.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

I don't think its too complex, thats what lawyers are for. I also don't see how it would drastically change marriage. An agreement entered by consenting adults should be fine.

It's like saying a business merger between more than two companies would drastically change the definition of business mergers. I don't agree that that follows.

So does my spouse's spouse's spouse get a marriage visa and covered by my insurance or not?

It seems you get a lot more networks in polyamory than you do closed triads and quadrads.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

Fair enough, but then anyone should be able to marry whoever and however many people they want for whatever reason. would you agree?

Originally Posted by RandFan

1. Re group marriage. I honestly don't know. I'm not against it but there are a number of problems that need to be addressed. Let's have those who want group marriage to fight for that just as gays and lesbians have done. Let's have them seek redress before the courts and have experts testify on both sides of the question just as they did for Gay Marriage.
2. Let's assume you and I are both against group marriage. Does it then follow that heterosexual marriage should be outlawed?

I would really like an answer to question #2.