Best Arguments For and Against Gay Marriage?

[DragonLady]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

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.

Damn TM, that should've come with a warning. I nearly spit coffee all over my keyboard.

[mutile]

For: Puts an end to a form of bigoted discrimination and being an international embarrassment.

Against: It might lead to more money for Churches

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by L.Y.S.

...why aren't homosexuals content with finding a different name other than marriage for their unions?

Why should we?

In regard to calling it something different, then that in itself makes it different. Telling one group of adults that they can’t have the same thing as all other adults creates two classes of citizenship.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

Why should we?

In regard to calling it something different, then that in itself makes it different. Telling one group of adults that they can’t have the same thing as all other adults creates two classes of citizenship.

It also makes confusion for trans and genderqueer. Which one applies to them and if they serving the wrong one can it be annulled for that reason?

[GodMark2]

Originally Posted by L.Y.S.

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.

Yeah, why aren't they OK with separate but equal? I mean, look at how well them colored folk like it.

[ravdin]

"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix."

-Senator Barack Obama, 2008

[bikerdruid]

i can't believe that this is still a dispute.
this is 2012...time to wake up and accept reality.

marriage should only be the business of the two consenting partners, as abortion is only the business of a woman.

their choice/her choice.
simple.
what's the boggle?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by ravdin

"I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix."

-Senator Barack Obama, 2008

Obama Backs Gay Marriage

Originally Posted by WSJ 2012

President Barack Obama said Wednesday he supported gay marriage, reversing his position on a controversial social issue just six months before the November election and adopting a stance fraught with uncertain political implications.

[ravdin]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Obama Backs Gay Marriage

Sure- I know that Obama's position eventually "evolved" when polls on the issue hit a magic tipping point. I've changed my mind once or twice as well on social issues (although I strongly suspect that Obama threw gay marriage under the bus rather than risk his chances of winning the election). Just having some fun.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by ravdin

Sure- I know that Obama's position eventually "evolved" when polls on the issue hit a magic tipping point. I've changed my mind once or twice as well on social issues (although I strongly suspect that Obama threw gay marriage under the bus rather than risk his chances of winning the election). Just having some fun.

I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean that Obama threw gay marriage under the bus prior to his announcement? FWIW: I won't try to argue that the position wasn't politically motivated but I'm not sure he really had much of anything to win with the announcement. Some have stated there was little to no upside politically.

[ravdin]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean that Obama threw gay marriage under the bus prior to his announcement? FWIW: I won't try to argue that the position wasn't politically motivated but I'm not sure he really had much of anything to win with the announcement. Some have stated there was little to no upside politically.

I suspect Obama was pandering when he said that but who knows? Maybe he really was that bigoted four years ago.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by ravdin

I suspect Obama was pandering when he said that but who knows? Maybe he really was that bigoted four years ago.

When I was against the rights of gays and lesbians to marry I was sincere. I don't think it made me evil. Perhaps bigoted. BTW: Exactly how bigoted is "that bigoted"? Whatever it is I guess Obama and I were equally bigoted. And let me say "wrong is wrong". In any event, I would not put it past a politician to pander. I kinda think that has to happen to some extent. It's when you get into the level of pandering that Mitt Romney brazenly employed that really troubles me.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

i can't believe that this is still a dispute.
this is 2012...time to wake up and accept reality.

marriage should only be the business of the two consenting partners,

In other words, keep government out of my marriage?

[Puppycow]

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.)

Lol.

I do think that there is a movement to 'normalise' gayness (not 'heteronormalise') and that's a good thing for most gay people. They don't want to freaks and outcasts.

[ravdin]

Originally Posted by RandFan

When I was against the rights of gays and lesbians to marry I was sincere. I don't think it made me evil. Perhaps bigoted. BTW: Exactly how bigoted is "that bigoted"? Whatever it is I guess Obama and I were equally bigoted. And let me say "wrong is wrong". In any event, I would not put it past a politician to pander. I kinda think that has to happen to some extent. It's when you get into the level of pandering that Mitt Romney brazenly employed that really troubles me.

By "that bigoted", I mean bigoted enough to say that a marriage between two gay people is not equal to an opposite sex union. I applaud you by the way for being open minded enough to admit you were wrong. My father in law is a lifelong and staunch conservative Republican and he had a similar realization on gay marriage (before Obama came out in favor of it, I might add). It makes me optimistic that before too long gay marriage will not only be accepted and legal but also uncontroversial.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

In other words, keep government out of my marriage?

that is not what i said.
if two consenting adults wish to marry, it is no one else's *********** business.
the churches do not have to marry them, but government marriage commissioners should not be able to refuse.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Ger

PROSELYTE = politicians' resort over sincerity, endless lies yelled to everyone

LIGHTNING

The thing was that he had made pro gay marriage statements before. Now I think he most likely just pushed for what he felt he could get, which is good politics. Look at washingtons road to extending more rights to gays over time to make it a small series of steps and so not shock voters.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by ravdin

By "that bigoted", I mean bigoted enough to say that a marriage between two gay people is not equal to an opposite sex union. I applaud you by the way for being open minded enough to admit you were wrong. My father in law is a lifelong and staunch conservative Republican and he had a similar realization on gay marriage (before Obama came out in favor of it, I might add). It makes me optimistic that before too long gay marriage will not only be accepted and legal but also uncontroversial.

not long ago, it was illegal to marry someone of another race.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

that is not what i said.
if two consenting adults wish to marry, it is no one else's *********** business.

So....why do we need to have government involved at all?

Two people wish to marry. Great. You're married. It is not my *********** business, so I can just ignore it.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

So....why do we need to have government involved at all?

Two people wish to marry. Great. You're married. It is not my *********** business, so I can just ignore it.

'marriage' has legal ramifications.
spousal benefits, medical insurance, inheritance rights.
'marriage' is a legal, state sanctioned contract.

[Crocoshark]

I thought of three versions of my post

1st version

Best arguments for: Legal benefits such as hospital visiting rights, etc., any other arguments that apply to marriage in general.

Marriage would be a cooler idea if it wasn't specifically about romance and involved expanding family and one's circle of loved ones. Like you could use it to bring your dearest life long friend and partner into your family. And maybe gay marriage will nudge marriage in that direction.

Best arguments against; Marriage should be a private enterprise that the government has no business in, marriage is overrated and pursued mostly out of conformity, any other arguments that gets applied to straight marriages as well.

For example, if you say "marriage should be between those who will raise children." you'd better be campaigning against sterile/asexual/etc. couples just as hard or else it's not even an argument, it's BS you made up and don't believe yourself

2nd version

Best argument for: It would make some people more comfortable and happy

Best argument against: It would make some peo,ple uncomfortable and unhappy

I guess the question is which sides feelings are more rational. I think neither side's feelings are very rational, but the "against" side is less so. It can't seem to come up with one single, logical, honest argument that doesn't sound hypocritical. At least the "for" side has the legal benefits and questions of fairness.

3rd version

Argument for: Some people feel a group of people is otherwise made lesser

Argument against: Some people feel an idea is made lesser.

People trump ideas.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

'marriage' has legal ramifications.
spousal benefits, medical insurance, inheritance rights.
'marriage' is a legal, state sanctioned contract.

No doubt.


So I'm having sex with my roommate, and the state is creating some sort of contract for it. What's up with that? It's none of their *********** business, but they have a contract all drawn up that they expect me to enter into.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

No doubt.


So I'm having sex with my roommate, and the state is creating some sort of contract for it. What's up with that? It's none of their *********** business, but they have a contract all drawn up that they expect me to enter into.

no one is forcing you into marriage, straight or queer.
get over it.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

No doubt.


So I'm having sex with my roommate, and the state is creating some sort of contract for it. What's up with that? It's none of their *********** business, but they have a contract all drawn up that they expect me to enter into.

If I didn't want to get married I wouldn't.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

No doubt.


So I'm having sex with my roommate, and the state is creating some sort of contract for it. What's up with that? It's none of their *********** business, but they have a contract all drawn up that they expect me to enter into.

Then don't get married. You don't get the rights and priviliges of marriage and the state doesn't care.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Then don't get married. You don't get the rights and priviliges of marriage and the state doesn't care.

Rights and privileges. Is there anything else to marriage?


Here's what I'm getting at. People who support gay marriage tend to speak in exactly those terms. They demand various rights and privileges associated with marriage, but if someone starts talking about duties and responsibilities, they tell those people it's none of their *********** business.

It seems to me that we ought not be granting any sort of rights and priviliges to people who enter into long term sexual relationships. It really is none of my business, so you should leave me out of it. Completely out of it. Totally out of it. Don't tie up local bureaucrats issuing licenses. Don't tie up local judges when you decide you don't care to stay together any more.

Gay or straight, poly or mono, I shouldn't care who you sleep with, so leave me and my tax dollars and my insurance dollars out of it. Do what you will.


Unless you can make some sort of case that I, as a citizen of your shared society, ought to care about the nature of your sexual relationships, then you shouldn't be demanding that I, through my elected officials, give you a license to carry on as you wish.

Now, if you and another person wish to enter into some sort of mutual property sharing agreement, I don't have any objection, but I fail to see why it should be somehow connected with the state's knowledge of the existence of some sort of sexual congress between you and the other person, or between you and some third person with whom you do not have an agreement.


So, to relate this to the specific question of the OP:

Best argument for: It's no different than heterosexual marriage.
Best argument against: It's no different than heterosexual marriage.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Rights and privileges. Is there anything else to marriage?


Here's what I'm getting at. People who support gay marriage tend to speak in exactly those terms. They demand various rights and privileges associated with marriage, but if someone starts talking about duties and responsibilities, they tell those people it's none of their *********** business.

No those are rights as well. You have a right to property in a divorce. Any responsibility is someone else's right.

Quote:

It seems to me that we ought not be granting any sort of rights and priviliges to people who enter into long term sexual relationships. It really is none of my business, so you should leave me out of it. Completely out of it. Totally out of it. Don't tie up local bureaucrats issuing licenses. Don't tie up local judges when you decide you don't care to stay together any more.

Deport all those scum who try to get a greencard for the stupid reason of love. We know it is really a job no real american wants.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

No those are rights as well. You have a right to property in a divorce. Any responsibility is someone else's right.

But that's a private agreement between two parties.

We have prenuptual agreements, don't we? Those work fine, don't they? They don't force anyone to do anything, and they spell out exactly what is expected, exactly as the two parties involved wish. Right? So let's just rename "pre-nuptual" agreements as "nuptual" agreements and honor the terms between those two private citizens as appropriate. If that contract happens to include some contractual obligation for sexual activity, I guess we can allow that. Why shouldn't we?

Quote:

Deport all those scum who try to get a greencard for the stupid reason of love. We know it is really a job no real american wants.

Love? Who's talking about love? This thread is about marriage.

Just pass a law that says each person can sponsor one other person into the country. Why bring love or sex or marriage into it?

If you really feel strongly about it, I suppose you could propose a law that says you can only sponsor one person if you can prove you are having sex regularly with that person. I suppose. Is that what you want?

Or is it love, specifically, that's important. It's going to be hard verifying love, though. Sex is at least definable and verifiable.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Love? Who's talking about love? This thread is about marriage.

I honestly don't give a damn one way or the other. Just be consistent. As long as the state is involved with marriage then I will fight like hell to see to it gays and lesbians enjoy equal rights. I will continue to live with my wife whether we are married or not. Let me know when you get the state out of marriage... oh, and good luck with that.

[Mercurial Artism]

Pro: Legal marriage is a government category, not the province of religious organizations, which will have their own, separate criteria for what constitutes a valid marriage. Due to separation of church and state, the government should not let religious arguments affect the legality of same-sex marriage.

Con: Next thing you know, people will demand the right to marry siblings and dogs! (It's a slippery slope argument, sure, but I've met enough mentally screwed up people to know there will be some people wanting those things who will try to draw analogies to gays to make out like they're just a poor, oppressed group.)

[Corsair 115]

If one wants to make an evidence-based case against same-sex marriage, claiming there are various negative outcomes for allowing it, I'd point out there are several countries in which the experiment has been run. In Canada, for example, same-sex marriage has been legal across the entire country for seven years now (it's been legal in the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario for nine years). So one has seven to nine years of real-world data to look at to try and find negative consequences.

As far as I'm aware, there haven't been any. (At least, not in the opinion of this citizen of the country named.)

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I honestly don't give a damn one way or the other. Just be consistent. As long as the state is involved with marriage then I will fight like hell to see to it gays and lesbians enjoy equal rights.

I think this attitude is very common, and even more common among supporters of gay marriage than among opponents.

And so, since people don't care what marriage is, I say why have it at all? "I don't care what it is as long as everyone gets it!" is kind of weak as a rallying cry. It's kind of like "I don't care what it is, but, by God we shouldn't let the queers have it."



Of course, if the truth be told, I don't really believe that, but there is something I do believe. I do believe that our current society's attitude toward marriage really is, "It's none of your *********** business." Marriage is whatever the two people involved think it is, except that if one of them decides he or she disagrees, it can be ended without cause or penalty. I do think that's worse than no marriage at all.

Therefore, I would like to see it thrown out as a civil institution, and replaced with one or more variations on civil union, that are at least official, well understood, and do not impose unwanted restrictions on the parties, but allow those parties to voluntarily accept those restrictions if that sort of restrictive agreement is what the parties desire.

And should a man be allowed to enter into such an agreement with another man? Sure, why not? It's his choice, and not some sort of outmoded tradition with no real meaning in the modern world.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

And so, since people don't care what marriage is, I say why have it at all? "I don't care what it is as long as everyone gets it!" is kind of weak as a rallying cry. It's kind of like "I don't care what it is, but, by God we shouldn't let the queers have it."

That's absurd. One is calling for equal rights and the other is hateful bigotry. Where did you get the idea that those were equivalent?

Quote:

Therefore, I would like to see it thrown out as a civil institution...

Like I said, good luck with that.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Rights and privileges. Is there anything else to marriage?


Here's what I'm getting at. People who support gay marriage tend to speak in exactly those terms. They demand various rights and privileges associated with marriage, but if someone starts talking about duties and responsibilities, they tell those people it's none of their *********** business.

It seems to me that we ought not be granting any sort of rights and priviliges to people who enter into long term sexual relationships. It really is none of my business, so you should leave me out of it. Completely out of it. Totally out of it. Don't tie up local bureaucrats issuing licenses. Don't tie up local judges when you decide you don't care to stay together any more.

Gay or straight, poly or mono, I shouldn't care who you sleep with, so leave me and my tax dollars and my insurance dollars out of it. Do what you will.


Unless you can make some sort of case that I, as a citizen of your shared society, ought to care about the nature of your sexual relationships, then you shouldn't be demanding that I, through my elected officials, give you a license to carry on as you wish.

Now, if you and another person wish to enter into some sort of mutual property sharing agreement, I don't have any objection, but I fail to see why it should be somehow connected with the state's knowledge of the existence of some sort of sexual congress between you and the other person, or between you and some third person with whom you do not have an agreement.


So, to relate this to the specific question of the OP:

Best argument for: It's no different than heterosexual marriage.
Best argument against: It's no different than heterosexual marriage.

I'm not sure whom you've interviewed who demands only the benefits without the responsibilities, but I think perhaps you should get out more.

You say you don't want to get involved with other people's property sharing agreements, but plenty of people, I think, would rather not have to figure out and renegotiate all the details of property, insurance, hospital visitation, notification of events, child custody, succession, immigration, taxes, and yes, responsibility, that marriage puts together rather efficiently, and that's assuming that society and government and whatnot even allow a person to make those arrangements. It's been traditionally pretty hard for gay parents, for example, to negotiate the ins and outs of child custody and care without a framework of marriage to tell unimaginative or bigoted school officials, medical personnel, police, and whatnot, how they must behave.

So you don't want to get involved, fine, but who do you propose should make the rules that determine, for example, who a school allows to take a child home at night? If you die married, your second cousin can't steal the house you leave your spouse. If you die in a state where you cannot marry, there's a good chance he can. If you're married, your alien spouse cannot be denied residency at the drop of a hat. If you're not, he or she can, children notwithstanding.

If, as happened to me this spring, you're involved in a near fatal accident, and you're married, the rescue squad will call your spouse, and there will be someone to comfort you when you wake up in the hospital. If you cannot marry this will probably not happen, and there's a good chance that your spouse will be turned away at the door if he does find out.

Sure, every one of these issues and others can be sorted out one at at time, and a new set of standards and laws figured out, etc. etc. But why? The idea of a long term permanent romantic relationship (yeah, sex is involved!) seems, after all, to be a pretty good way of defining how people relate, and over a long period we've gotten together a pretty efficient package of rights, responsibilities and protections. I'll admit that I'm a bit biased. I love being married, and find it suits me to a tee, but aside from that i think it's a pretty efficient setup.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by bruto

I'm not sure whom you've interviewed who demands only the benefits without the responsibilities, but I think perhaps you should get out more.....

Ok, let me interview you.

If you are married, you are required, by law, to.................what exactly? Anything?

In our society, I can't think of anything. The closest thing is that upon stating a desire to dissolve the union, you must agree to have a judge decide what is and isn't joint property, and how to divide it, but you aren't required to actually declare anything in particular to be joint property. You can exclude anything you want.

ETA: And "joint property" can also include access to future earnings (i.e. alimony), and laws vary widely by state. In general, alimony is not what it used to be. It's usually temporary and not all that substantial. Marriage does not provide much economic security these days.

[bruto]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Ok, let me interview you.

If you are married, you are required, by law, to.................what exactly? Anything?

In our society, I can't think of anything. The closest thing is that upon stating a desire to dissolve the union, you must agree to have a judge decide what is and isn't joint property, and how to divide it, but you aren't required to actually declare anything in particular to be joint property. You can exclude anything you want.

ETA: And "joint property" can also include access to future earnings (i.e. alimony), and laws vary widely by state. In general, alimony is not what it used to be. It's usually temporary and not all that substantial. Marriage does not provide much economic security these days.

Of course, most of marriage is predicated on its lasting, and that is privileges more than responsibilities, but it sort of depends on circumstances. We both can hire lawyers and ensure that neither is impoverished or enriched unduly by a divorce. While we're married, we have certain responsibilities to each other which are not automatic. We are liable for at least some of each other's maintenance, payment of debts, etc. Some responsibilities may count as a privilege for one side, a responsibility for the other. We can't lock the door and tell the other to go to hell. We can't refuse to support children. The status of some unpleaantness is changed when it's classified as domestic abuse. Some of the responsibilities are negative but not necessarily to society. I can't take welfare if my wife is well off. I can't qualify for low income housing if my spouse owns a vacation home.

Sure, most of what we get from marriage is benefits, especially if we stay married. It still seems like a pretty useful institution that would be hard to do without.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I honestly don't give a damn one way or the other. Just be consistent. As long as the state is involved with marriage then I will fight like hell to see to it gays and lesbians enjoy equal rights. I will continue to live with my wife whether we are married or not. Let me know when you get the state out of marriage... oh, and good luck with that.

Government isn't involved for the religious aspect, but rather for the legal enforcement of the marriage, as well as any dissolution later.

People treat the government's role as if it is some ethical legitimizer rather than the function of a subservient enforcer, which is a utilitarian activity.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by bruto

Of course, most of marriage is predicated on its lasting, and that is privileges more than responsibilities, but it sort of depends on circumstances. We both can hire lawyers and ensure that neither is impoverished or enriched unduly by a divorce. While we're married, we have certain responsibilities to each other which are not automatic. We are liable for at least some of each other's maintenance, payment of debts, etc. Some responsibilities may count as a privilege for one side, a responsibility for the other. We can't lock the door and tell the other to go to hell. We can't refuse to support children. The status of some unpleaantness is changed when it's classified as domestic abuse. Some of the responsibilities are negative but not necessarily to society. I can't take welfare if my wife is well off. I can't qualify for low income housing if my spouse owns a vacation home.

Sure, most of what we get from marriage is benefits, especially if we stay married. It still seems like a pretty useful institution that would be hard to do without.

Well the is the responsibility to be financially ruined if your spouse gets a serious long term illness. That is a responsibility.

[Meadmaker]

Joint debts are just the flip side of joint assets. Both sides of the ledger get divided at the time of dissolution.

So the "responsibility" of marriage is to behave like a joint economic entity until such time as one of the parties cares to stop, and then submit to a judge's agreement on how to divide the assets and liabilities.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by RandFan

That's absurd. One is calling for equal rights and the other is hateful bigotry. Where did you get the idea that those were equivalent?

They both ignore what it is that is being granted or withheld, and put the issue of who gets it at the fore. We don't know what it is that they are getting, but we are very concerned about who gets it.

One version is hateful. The other is kind. Both are meaningless.