Best Arguments For and Against Gay Marriage?

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I think a serious answer to the question first requires an answer to the question, "What are the best arguments for and against marriage?"

Why should the government care who you are sleeping with?

Welcome, fellow libertarian.

In a properly-defined government, The People never grant the government the power to regulate sexuality in the first place.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Caper

If you lived in a country where you might be killed for it... I think it would be a very rational fear of you felt you may be homosexual.

That would be a fear of the consequences of being homosexual. Not irrational depending on where one lives. But that's a very different thing. Simply fearing the consequences of being homosexual is not itself contributory to instances like those that led to the killing of Mathew Shepard. It's the irrational emotional responses like fear of homosexuality that that leads to such acts.

In short, there is nothing per se maladaptive about being homosexual. It would be as irrational to fear being homosexual as it would be to fear having blue eyes.

Now, if you want to say I'm pedantically making a distinction then that's fine. Let's accept the premise that the fear of the consequences of being homosexual can be argued to be a rational fear for being homosexual.

A.) Not a valid argument against gay marriage. B.) The only way a valid argument against gay marriage could be made is if being homosexuality is itself maladaptive (apart from cultural taboo). It's not so I stand by my original statement.

[Ladewig]

Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic

Agreed, but I'm not sure why such people would be bothered that two views they hold and consider reasonable sound similar. The bigger problem is surely for those who rightly view bans on interracial marriage as a horrifying blot on our collective history.



But that doesn't mean that it's never legitimate to discriminate based on a person's choices, just that it isn't considered legitimate in those cases. As a society, we discriminate against people who decide to commit crimes, by locking them up. We discriminate against people who indulge in "vices" like drinking and smoking by making them pay additional taxes based on how much they do these things. An apologist would probably argue that some people are more or less naturally inclined to drink, smoke or steal, just as some people have a greater or lesser inclination to be attracted to the same sex, but that doesn't mean they should be treated equally with people who are more virtuous.

I agree with your points, however the people I am referring to do not say "homosexuals do not deserve equal rights because it is a choice AND that choice harms people" or ""homosexuals do not deserve equal rights because it is a choice AND that choice's inherent immorality is detrimental to both individuals and communities." These folks say "It's a choice - end of discussion - everything else is sophistry." OK, these folks don't use words like sophistry, but that is their position. Their argument doesn't begin with "it's a choice," their argument ends with "it's a choice."

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by St.Michael

I have never thought much about marriage until recently since it's not something that was a choice open to “us” while I was growing up. If my partner suggested getting married I wouldn't object to a Civil Partnership/Ceremony in a registry office. Many of our friends have Civil Partnerships, which amounts to the same thing, they even refer to it as being married.

However it would feel very strange to me standing there with him in a church having our relationship blessed by the notorious Homophobe called "God" who's alleged words in the bible caused me much misery and self loathing when I realised that my natural sexual inclination was very much against what my family had taught me to believe in and which some of them even now find Disgusting/revolting/sinful etc...

Or am I just being difficult or a stick in the mud?

Having said that, a ceremony in a church/cathedral would provide a spectacular backdrop and would make the wedding photographs more interesting.

We didn't invite god to our wedding and took pictures at the museum of natural history. So beat that having dinosaurs in my wedding photos.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Recovering Agnostic

Agreed, but I'm not sure why such people would be bothered that two views they hold and consider reasonable sound similar. The bigger problem is surely for those who rightly view bans on interracial marriage as a horrifying blot on our collective history.

But that doesn't mean that it's never legitimate to discriminate based on a person's choices, just that it isn't considered legitimate in those cases. As a society, we discriminate against people who decide to commit crimes, by locking them up. We discriminate against people who indulge in "vices" like drinking and smoking by making them pay additional taxes based on how much they do these things. An apologist would probably argue that some people are more or less naturally inclined to drink, smoke or steal, just as some people have a greater or lesser inclination to be attracted to the same sex, but that doesn't mean they should be treated equally with people who are more virtuous.

Justice and penal consequences often seem to come into religious arguments like this, which is probably a result of seeing gay marriage primarily as a sin against God's law. That's another reason why homosexuality has to be painted as a choice - if it's natural and innate, it throws most mainstream religious views into very choppy waters. Realistically, you either have to go full Calvinist and assert that gay people are damned from birth, or else work out some convoluted way for them to be valued and saved, and explain why God made them to be something He considers an abomination.

Originally Posted by Ladewig

I agree with your points, however the people I am referring to do not say "homosexuals do not deserve equal rights because it is a choice AND that choice harms people" or ""homosexuals do not deserve equal rights because it is a choice AND that choice's inherent immorality is detrimental to both individuals and communities." These folks say "It's a choice - end of discussion - everything else is sophistry." OK, these folks don't use words like sophistry, but that is their position. Their argument doesn't begin with "it's a choice," their argument ends with "it's a choice."

This ^^^ The notions of "choice" has no relevance unless the choice harms others. Otherwise it is irrational and bigoted to discriminate on the basis of another person's choice.

[Nessie]

For - they know how to party. But please don't play Its Raining Men for the first dance.

Against - they cannot breed.

[Vortigern99]

Pro: People have a right to marry and love whom they choose.

Pro: No one -- not society at large, not any specific individual -- is harmed through homosexual marriage.

Anti-con (IE a rebuttal to a supposed "con"): Some heterosexual people also marry without having children.

Anti-con: Some homosexual couples adopt.

[CORed]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

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

Monogamy reduces the risk of sexually transmitted diseases.

I'm also told it is the most satisfying way of conducting ones love life. I'll let everybody know if that's true in the unlikely event that i ever try it.

[CORed]

Originally Posted by Spindrift

The Declaration of Independence is not a set of laws. That documents also says that the colonies should be "free and independent states", not one single country. And as others have noted it does not say "all people".



Okay, I'll bite. What rights and privileges do you not have as a straight American?

Anonymous restroom sex.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

It isn't an argument for it. How many effects does a parent child relation entail? I am sure it is hundreds, yet you don't see people trying to break that status down into individual components unlike the status of marriage.

And unlike people getting married, very few people choose to be born and select their parents! I don't believe that comparison is apt.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by CORed

Monogamy reduces the risk of sexually transmitted diseases.

Never getting in a car reduces the risk of death by automobile.

Quote:

I'm also told it is the most satisfying way of conducting ones love life.

I've done it faithfully for a quarter century. It's worked well for me and I have no complaints. Sure I have my fantasies but I also have the capacity to know that real life isn't a fantasy and I'm no player. I count myself lucky and that's where I'd like to leave it.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by CORed

Anonymous restroom sex.

You lack either imagination and/or ambition. It's happened I assure you.

[St.Michael]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

We didn't invite god to our wedding and took pictures at the museum of natural history. So beat that having dinosaurs in my wedding photos.

What I meant by blessed by 'God' is the religious aspect of marriage. Isn't that the difference between a civil ceremony at a registry office and a marriage in a church?

[bruto]

Late to the party, I have jumped right to the end of the thread.

I haven't yet heard a good argument against.

"Breeding" as a distinction allowing only heterosexual marriages is of course a crazy criterion unless breeding is required of heterosexuals and marriages after menopause or sterility banned, homosexuals who have bred and divorced are denied custody, and adoption or surrogacy by homosexual couples is also banned.

I have made the point often enough, but just in case anyone missed the million or so times I repeated it, I will remind those who bring it up again, that since homosexual couples have been adopting and retaining custody of natural children for far longer than they have been allowed to marry, the family issue of which "breeding" is a subset actually became a key component in the Vermont Supreme Court's decision not to deny rights to homosexuals but to affirm them, and to force what became the first civil union law.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by St.Michael

I have never thought much about marriage until recently since it's not something that was a choice open to “us” while I was growing up. If my partner suggested getting married I wouldn't object to a Civil Partnership/Ceremony in a registry office. Many of our friends have Civil Partnerships, which amounts to the same thing, they even refer to it as being married.

However it would feel very strange to me standing there with him in a church having our relationship blessed by the notorious Homophobe called "God" who's alleged words in the bible caused me much misery and self loathing when I realised that my natural sexual inclination was very much against what my family had taught me to believe in and which some of them even now find Disgusting/revolting/sinful etc...

Or am I just being difficult or a stick in the mud?

Having said that, a ceremony in a church/cathedral would provide a spectacular backdrop and would make the wedding photographs more interesting.

You seem to be talking about a wedding, not a marriage.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Beerina

Welcome, fellow libertarian.

In a properly-defined government, The People never grant the government the power to regulate sexuality in the first place.

I'm only sort of libertarian on sex.

I'm actually an advocate of a very traditional view of marriage, complete with things like being able to sue your spouse for infidelity, but only for couples who understand that's what they are agreeing to when they sign up. In the terms you spoke of, I would agree to the government being a contract enforcer for couples who agree to regulation. Of course, government should only step in at the request of an injured party.

For people who don't want that, then go to town and seek sexual pleasure however you wish, and it's none of the government's business.


The idea that marriage is anything other than sexual regulation by the state is just missing the point. That is what it is and always has been, and there's no point to it if that is not what it is. I've seen people demand the right to gay marriage and use as their reasoning that government ought to stay out of their marriage. Uhhh.....that's a bit like those Tea Party signs that said, "Keep the government out of Medicare!"

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Never getting in a car reduces the risk of death by automobile.

No. Monogamy is a decision a person makes, death in a car accident is not.

[Ginarley]

I see no problem with equality so abolishing straight marriage seems the way to go.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

No. Monogamy is a decision a person makes, death in a car accident is not.

No, choosing not to get in a car is most certainly a decision this person makes. No one forces me to get into a car at the point of a gun. And I often choose to not get into a car thus reducing my relative risk of harm and/or death.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by RandFan

No, choosing not to get in a car is most certainly a decision this person makes. No one forces me to get into a car at the point of a gun. And I often choose to not get into a car thus reducing my relative risk of harm and/or death.

Needless to say, too (I'd have thought) a decision goes both ways. While there may be instances where death comes uninvited, you could also choose to drive drunk and too fast and leave your seatbelt off, and that is certainly a decision a person makes. Of course you can make the decision to be monogamous, and having done so will not be polygamous, but if your partner dispenses with your control and divorces you or dies you will not be gamous at all.

[Miss_Kitt]

Living in Washington State, which just yesterday voted to legalize marriages between members of the same sex, I have been hearing a lot of the arguments for months now. Here's what they all seem to boil down to:

Against: A) It's unnatural! B) It's against tradition! C) It's against the Bible!
(Of course, these ignore that A) Homosexuality* has, insofar as we can determine, been present and at approximately the same rate--8 to 12% of the population--for all of human history; B) Permitting women and non-whites to own property, get an education, vote, and be treated as humans, not the property of some white male, is also 'against tradition' for much of US history; C) Using the law to enforce The Bible is specifically banned by the Constitution.

For: A) Essential fairness, providing the same options to mentally competent adults regardless of sexual orientation; B) Provides recognition and reinforcement of pair-bonds and family units, to the benefit of society; C) Recognition that the legal/secular meaning of 'marriage' is different from the religious one, and thus not enforcing religion with the power of the State.

But really, the arguments boil down more essentially to this: "Gayness is bad, and acknowledging it as anything but BAD BAD BAD will somehow harm me / my children / my church / our country / mankind." To which the reply is, of course, "How?"

As several posters have mentioned above, the notion that homosexuality is somehow a choice -- which increasing amounts of evidence indicate it is not -- and one that is inherently tempting to the heterosexual, is fundamental to the argument against. This always leaves me shaking my head. I have no problem, in principle, with the notion of homosexuality or bisexuality: I just can't imagine being sexually attracted to another woman. I'm in middle age, and I've never felt a twinge. (Though I do sometimes think, "That will make the guys stand up and take notice..." about some woman's appearance and/or behavior.) From both reading and talking to friends, it seems that being gay is something you just ARE, and you discover it fairly early on.

So, fwiw, I think that we will see gay marriage become nationally recognized from state to state and eventually nationally, just as we saw inter-racial marriage become legal.

Just my thoughts, MK

* I am using the term "homosexuality" to mean that one is basically and consistently romantically and sexually attracted to one's own sex. Having an experimental event with another person out of curiosity, absent a comparable sexual/emotional attraction that one feels to the opposite sex, isn't being homosexual. It's being curious. Similarly I would argue that trying to use one's left hand for primary activities for a day when one is righthanded is not being "ambidexterous". There seems to be a comparable level of hard-wiring involved in the two aspects of a person.

[L.Y.S.]

Originally Posted by Nessie

Against - they cannot breed.

The only thing I can think of, though I don't know how valid it is.

[Subduction Zone]

It was conservative arguments that convince me that gays should be able to marry!

I have heard countless times of all of the sex partners that homosexual men have. Of course I was a bit jealous since straight men seem to be far behind homosexual men when it comes to numbers of partner, and what guy has not boasted about the number of "conquests" he has made, gay or straight? I realized that it was hypocritical to complain about the number of partners that a group had and at the same time to oppose an institution that would greatly reduce the number of their partners.

I have known gay people throughout my life. I have worked with them. I have had them as customers. And I never found a huge difference except for their sexual preference.

So why shouldn't they be allowed to marry the person that they love like any of us can?

I live in Washington state, like Miss Kitt does and I voted for gay marriage. I am happy for their success.

[Ron_Tomkins]

I'm not against any consensual, harmless activity between two grown up. There's no logical reason to be against it.

[Recovering Agnostic]

Originally Posted by Ladewig

I agree with your points, however the people I am referring to do not say "homosexuals do not deserve equal rights because it is a choice AND that choice harms people" or ""homosexuals do not deserve equal rights because it is a choice AND that choice's inherent immorality is detrimental to both individuals and communities." These folks say "It's a choice - end of discussion - everything else is sophistry." OK, these folks don't use words like sophistry, but that is their position. Their argument doesn't begin with "it's a choice," their argument ends with "it's a choice."

That sounds rather underdeveloped as an argument, and it doesn't exactly tally with my experience, but maybe that's down to the sort of people I spend my time arguing with. Alternatively, it could be that the immorality/detriment aspect is there as an unstated premise, maybe because they think it's blindingly obvious. How many of these opponents of gay marriage, if asked directly, would say that two people of the same sex getting married would be moral and harm no one? I'd be surprised if you could find one.

But if we're talking about the best arguments for and against, the general practical application of a given line of argument is irrelevant. The only thing that matters is whether it's possible to construct an argument along these lines that's strong enough to be worth discussing.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

And unlike people getting married, very few people choose to be born and select their parents! I don't believe that comparison is apt.

The point is that they are both statuses involving being family with someone. Marriage is more than a contract about property.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

The point is that they are both statuses involving being family with someone.

So? They're still two different things. Not similar enough to say marriage is in no need of reform because parents have relationships with their children. You can find a similarity between any two things in the cosmos, that doesn't mean the similarity is significant to the matter at hand.

Quote:

Marriage is more than a contract about property.

Again, I never said it was only about property. It's about mating--taking a mate.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Subduction Zone

So why shouldn't they be allowed to marry the person that they love like any of us can?

But should anyone be "allowed" to marry?

What purpose does it serve? How about if,instead of "allowing" us to marry, the government just allowed us to share checking accounts just because we feel like it, and stopped asking about whether or not we are having sex,or with whom?

Ponderingturtle keeps talking about establishing kinship relationships. Fine. Why can't we establish kinship relationships with anyone? Why do we limit it to specific circumstances, generally associated with sexual intercourse?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Ponderingturtle keeps talking about establishing kinship relationships. Fine. Why can't we establish kinship relationships with anyone? Why do we limit it to specific circumstances, generally associated with sexual intercourse?

Indeed. Like the situation in "The Golden Girls". Three old ladies, unrelated to each other, not (I hope) in a sexual relationship, but living together as a family. Why shouldn't they be able to arrange themselves into a family unit recognized by law, so they could handle their property jointly, take care of each other's medical decisions (like when it's time to put Rose to sleep), etc?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

So? They're still two different things. Not similar enough to say marriage is in no need of reform because parents have relationships with their children. You can find a similarity between any two things in the cosmos, that doesn't mean the similarity is significant to the matter at hand. .

I never said it couldn't use some reform. But this is a massive change and those advocating it seem to be poorly placed for determining all the results.

You are arguing for a very complex system to replace a very simple one. Complex systems are open to abuse see Romney's taxes. I need to be convinced that the benefits of this will outweigh the inevitable abuse.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

But should anyone be "allowed" to marry?

What purpose does it serve? How about if,instead of "allowing" us to marry, the government just allowed us to share checking accounts just because we feel like it, and stopped asking about whether or not we are having sex,or with whom?

Ponderingturtle keeps talking about establishing kinship relationships. Fine. Why can't we establish kinship relationships with anyone? Why do we limit it to specific circumstances, generally associated with sexual intercourse?

I don't think we should though it seems to be how most people in the us by a vast majority want it. You just don't see that many platonic life partners merging their finances like most married people do.

I think any two adults should be able to get married. Making it more than two is an option but as this is changing marriage for everyone it would impact my marriage in a way that gay marriage can't.

[Merton]

For: Homosexuals are people

Against: None whatsoever

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

So? They're still two different things. Not similar enough to say marriage is in no need of reform because parents have relationships with their children. You can find a similarity between any two things in the cosmos, that doesn't mean the similarity is significant to the matter at hand.



Again, I never said it was only about property. It's about mating--taking a mate.

Mating as in sex privileges or mating as in partnership?

Because the former I don't buy, the latter I do.

[L.Y.S.]

Lol this forum is too moderate. Aren't there any extremist or something we can talk to about the issue?

I can think of one other for against. If the human species is near extinction (but still able to mate) then it is the duty of the people remaining to regenerate the human species. Again it's not my position I'm just trying really hard to find a reason for being against, to diversify the conversation.

I know this may seem controversial, I'm just curious, why aren't homosexuals content with finding a different name other than marriage for their unions? I'm just curious, it's not meant to be offensive.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by L.Y.S.

Lol this forum is too moderate. Aren't there any extremist or something we can talk to about the issue?

I can think of one other for against. If the human species is near extinction (but still able to mate) then it is the duty of the people remaining to regenerate the human species. Again it's not my position I'm just trying really hard to find a reason for being against, to diversify the conversation.

I know this may seem controversial, I'm just curious, why aren't homosexuals content with finding a different name other than marriage for their unions? I'm just curious, it's not meant to be offensive.

I think the basic idea is that if you have what is effectively a marriage, and the only reason that you can't call it that is because you're gay, then it is immediately apparent that gay couples are being segregated for that reason alone. Of course worse things could be imagined, but why not do it right?

Meadmaker and others come up with various options that would get around the issue in some way or another without anyone having to gag on the words "gay marriage," but it would be a hard sell for the people who have already trodden a groove in the slippery slope, convinced from the start that even repealing sodomy laws would lead inevitably to polygamy, incest, mock marriages for legal benefits, and little old ladies marrying their cats. But the traditional civil marriage saves a lot of hassle, paperwork, and re-definition. You don't have to go through separate hoops to figure out estate succession, child custody, visitation, checking, immigration, community property and so forth. It's really pretty convenient. We straight folks have enjoyed the economy of it for generations. It seems to me the simplest way to stop bickering and move on to problems that really need solving is to let homosexuals marry too and be done with it.

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Merton

For: Homosexuals are people

Oh yeah?? Well.... well, Corporations are people two. Are you not gonna let them marry too? Huh?? What next?? A society where we allow people to engage in incest and bestiality???? What has this society come down to????

[Spindrift]

Originally Posted by CORed

Anonymous restroom sex.

Try a different rest stop.

[Merton]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins

Oh yeah?? Well.... well, Corporations are people two. Are you not gonna let them marry too? Huh?? What next?? A society where we allow people to engage in incest and bestiality???? What has this society come down to????

Not here: http://motherboard.vice.com/2012/11/...en-t-humans--2

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by RandFan

No, choosing not to get in a car is most certainly a decision this person makes. No one forces me to get into a car at the point of a gun. And I often choose to not get into a car thus reducing my relative risk of harm and/or death.

Monogamy is like getting killed in a car accident over and over every day.

Hooray! Now I've thought of a theme for anniversary parties.

[JoeBentley]

Arguments for the legalization and social acceptance of homosexual marriage.

Tolerance, equality, lack of objective harm to anyone else, protection of individual rights in cases of medical incapacitation, inheritance, etc, we already went through this damn dance with mixed race couples so we already know how it's gonna turn out and how people that oppose it are gonna wind up looking, reality.

Arguments against the legalization and social acceptance of homosexual marriage.

It makes the baby Jebus cry. Ewww two dudes gross!