Best Arguments For and Against Gay Marriage?

[TragicMonkey]

Fairness means treating everybody the same. It doesn't mean that treatment is necessarily sensible. Sure, marriage is a stupid and pointless institution for fools. But as long as it's available for some, it should be available for all.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Sure, marriage is a stupid and pointless institution for fools. But as long as it's available for some, it should be available for all.

TM, why are you so down on marriage? Having only been married for just a little over two years certainly doesn't make me a pro, but I like being married. In fact, getting married is one of the best decisions I've ever made. Maybe it has something to do with marring for the first time at age 46, I sowed my wild seeds.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

TM, why are you so down on marriage?

Because it's lazy. People give up once they get married, and eventually either a)split up, b)become unhappy but are too riddled with inertia to bother splitting up so spend decades in misery, or c) are blissfully in True Love with hearts and candy kisses 4ever!!!!!!!

I leave it to the statistics to determine how often c happens instead of a. To my mind, b is the worst possible option. The other two are pretty horrible, too.

[Alt+F4]

I think the opposite, I work harder at my relationship because we are married. I don't think my spouse is my "soul-mate" (what a joke) and at least twice I have wanted to hit her on the head with the coffee pot. With that said, she is my "slow burn". Both of us have stated that we will divorce if we are no longer happy together (this is her second marriage, so yeah, I believe her).

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Fairness means treating everybody the same. It doesn't mean that treatment is necessarily sensible. Sure, marriage is a stupid and pointless institution for fools. But as long as it's available for some, it should be available for all.

fair enough.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Beerina

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.

Thank you but none of that is relevant to my point. I don't care why govt is involved. I don't care if it is a giant waste of everyone's time for the govt to be involved (as it relates to my point).

If govt is going to be in the marriage business then treat everyone equally. End of story.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Because it's lazy. People give up once they get married, and eventually either a)split up, b)become unhappy but are too riddled with inertia to bother splitting up so spend decades in misery, or c) are blissfully in True Love with hearts and candy kisses 4ever!!!!!!!

Coming from a community that doesn't believe in divorce, I think you underestimate how hard you work to improve your relationship when you not only truly care for the person but are genuinely committed to your happiness together. I genuinely believe that a married couple can build something that is impossible without that deep and permanent commitment having been made.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

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.

An absolutely meaningless distinction as it relates to my point. It doesn't make any difference whatsoever. What matters is that the govt which is tasked to treat everyone equally isn't treating everyone equally. That's it. End of story. All of the rest is silly irrelevancies. Now, don't get me wrong, you want to end govt involvement with marriage? Please, have at it. I think you are going to fail but I really don't give a damn. If you do succeed then my hats off to you. But until then, STOP discriminating. Is that really so hard to understand?

Quote:

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

Yep, and that fact is entirely irrelevant. What matters is inequality. It's not my job to tell gays and lesbians who want to get married that their subjective desires are meaningless and therefore they ought to care more about ending the relationship between marriage and the state.

I don't ******* care. I think there are trade offs when it comes to the states involvement. I think there are good things about marriage that I wouldn't mind keeping. BUT I DON'T CARE! If marriage disappeared tomorrow it would really be no skin off of my teeth.

Here's the deal, so long as marriage and the state are intertwined then I'm going to fight for equality. Understood? Nothing else matters. I don't feel the need to get the state out of the marriage business. I just don't give a ****. And that you think it is important ISN'T a reason for me to stop fighting for equality.

Sorry for the rant. I just find the idea of dismissing the fight for equality on the grounds that marriages is not something that gays and lesbians should even want to be a bizarre presupposition. What I mean to say is that I'm not so presumptuous as to tell gays and lesbians that not only can they not have state sanctioned marriage but they are wrong to want it.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I genuinely believe that a married couple can build something that is impossible without that deep and permanent commitment having been made.

glad to hear that you support marriage equality.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by bikerdruid

glad to hear that you support marriage equality.

I support equal governmental rights for all citizens. But "marriage equality" in the way you mean is nonsensical because "same-sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms.

[Caper]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Thank you but none of that is relevant to my point. I don't care why govt is involved. I don't care if it is a giant waste of everyone's time for the govt to be involved (as it relates to my point).

If govt is going to be in the marriage business then treat everyone equally. End of story.

Does that include polygamous marriage? Or brother sister marriage? I am not trying to start anything, just curious.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I support equal governmental rights for all citizens. But "marriage equality" in the way you mean is nonsensical because "same-sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms.

No it isn't.

Originally Posted by Merriam Webster

mar·riage

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage>

[AvalonXQ]

Anyway, here's the best argument for recognizing only man-and-woman marriage:

The purpose of the government-recognized marriage is to incentivize relationships for producing and raising children. This is why marriage is traditionally limited to adults of opposite gender that are not too closely related, and why failure to produce children is a traditionally-accepted grounds for annulment or divorce.

Children are the expected result and consequence of allowing a couple to build a home together, and marriage is designed to be permanent enough to continue to provide the family environment that children need.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by RandFan

No it isn't.

Yes, it is. Yay for modern redefinitions, but the only real marriages are the first life-long oaths before God of a man and a woman together, period.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I support equal governmental rights for all citizens. But "marriage equality" in the way you mean is nonsensical because "same-sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms.

Yep, like spousal rape.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Caper

Does that include polygamous marriage? Or brother sister marriage? I am not trying to start anything, just curious.

That's cool. When I first came to this forum 11 years ago I took a stand against the rights of gays and lesbians to marry. This was (I believed) my knock-down argument. I soon learned that it's no more relevant to same sex marriage than it is to heterosexual marriage.

Bob: We need to get rid of heterosexual marriage.
Tim: Why?
Bob: Because it will lead to homosexual marriage.
Tim: And that's a problem because?
Bob: That will in turn lead to people marrying tractors and other farm implements.

But, you asked a question and it deserves an answer. Particular given the context that my post was in reference to which was a suggestion that we should get the state out of marriage. Perhaps Bob's argument is valid after all.

It could include polygamous marriage and sibling marriage. I honesty don't know. If and when people are fighting for them then we can have a discussion and determine if there is a compelling interest either way.

Either way it doesn't appeal to my sense of disgust or revulsion. The jury, in my mind, is still out.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Yep, like spousal rape.

Or humble skepticism.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I support equal governmental rights for all citizens. But "marriage equality" in the way you mean is nonsensical because "same-sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms.

I'm in a legal same-sex marriage, I am legally married so please explain to me how my marriage is a "contradiction in terms".

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Yes, it is. Yay for modern redefinitions, but the only real marriages are the first life-long oaths before God of a man and a woman together, period.

So my grandfathers marriage doesn't count because it wasn't their first marriage? I though remarrying was fine for widows and widowers? Or are they discounted for being in their 70s when they married?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Or humble skepticism.

It is a clear redefinition by a liberal agenda to change what marriage means and happened in living memory.

That is something you are against so why is that change in the unchangeable marriage acceptable?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Yes, it is. Yay for modern redefinitions, but the only real marriages are the first life-long oaths before God of a man and a woman together, period.

"Redefinitions"? Words are not laws that govern the universe. They are not a priori. It doesn't matter what referent you use for square. It will never by definition be a circle. A union between two people is marriage. You don't have to like it but you are not god and you are not world leader and the rest of us have left you behind just like we left those who believed that marriage was only a union between a man and woman of the same race.

Sorry, but it really is over. People should be able to recognize when they have thoroughly lost. Every year the number of nations and states that recognize gay marriage is increasing. The trend is only going in one direction. Get over it. And if you don't that's fine also. Some day you will die and your anachronistic views will die with you just like they are doing with the racists and misogynists. Hatred and bigotry is ultimately self defeating.

Same-sex marriage in the United States
Countries That Recognize Gay Marriage

[Caper]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Either way it doesn't appeal to my sense of disgust or revulsion. The jury, in my mind, is still out.

Not mine. Don't mind polygamous marriage. No need to allow sibling marriage,,,, it's twisted and gross.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Coming from a community that doesn't believe in divorce, I think you underestimate how hard you work to improve your relationship when you not only truly care for the person but are genuinely committed to your happiness together.

No, it's not that I "underestimate" the amount of hard work, it's that I reject the notion that a relationship you have to work hard at is worth having. My mom's family is Catholic, and they don't believe in divorce, so they worked at keeping their marriages together. Congratulations are in order for some of my mom's relatives. The cousin who worked and worked to preserve her marriage--and did! Well done! Sure, he beat her. And the kids. But they stayed together, and that's the important thing.

And then there's the sad cases of those who stay together out of inertia, or because it's expected. My grandparents had a very long marriage. They didn't love each other, not past the first thirty years, but they stuck it out for another forty because it was what was done. Forty years of being unhappy. Worth it?

Quote:

I genuinely believe that a married couple can build something that is impossible without that deep and permanent commitment having been made.

And I genuinely believe that before you work at something you should determine whether it's worth the expense in time and resources. In most cases, it's not. This "together forever" crap is romantic drivel, and a great deal of human misery is created and compounded by people buying into the notion of One True Love and then trying to make it work when it's clearly not.

[Dessi]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Anyway, here's the best argument for recognizing only man-and-woman marriage:

The purpose of the government-recognized marriage is to incentivize relationships for producing and raising children. This is why marriage is traditionally limited to adults of opposite gender that are not too closely related, and why failure to produce children is a traditionally-accepted grounds for annulment or divorce.

Children are the expected result and consequence of allowing a couple to build a home together, and marriage is designed to be permanent enough to continue to provide the family environment that children need.

A few things here:

1) There is NOT a requirement to have children, or even an expectation, in order to marry. Never has been, never will be, has no legal precedent in anything.

2) Even if there were, the procreation argument suspiciously *only* applies to same-gender couples, never opposite-gender couples. Examples:

- post-menopausal, post-vasectomy, post-hysterectomy people can have opposite-gender marriages, but not same-gender marriage.

- people in their late 90s can have opposite-gender marriages, but not same-gender marriage.

- my former coworker and his wife were unable to conceive for 12 years before falling back on in-vitro, no one challenged their marriage because they were a heterosexual couple.

- voluntarily childless couples can have opposite-gender marriages, but not same-gender marriages.

- about 50% of the gay/bisexual men and women I know over 35 have children from a previously heterosexual marriage. These same couples are unable to marry in Nebraska with their same-gender spouse, even though they satisfy the procreation requirement anyway.

People aren't being discriminated against due to their procreational ability. They're being discriminated against due to their same-gender relationship for no obvious rational basis. I submit the discrimination is based on irrational prejudice against same-gender couples, nothing more, nothing less.

[Dessi]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

But "marriage equality" in the way you mean is nonsensical because "same-sex marriage" is a contradiction in terms.

Because you said so? Errrmm, no. What contradiction are you referring to?

[Caper]

Originally Posted by Dessi

A few things here:

1) There is NOT a requirement to have children, or even an expectation, in order to marry. Never has been, never will be, has no legal precedent in anything.

I'm pretty sure in marriage there was always an expectation to have children..... Not so much anymore..... though still for straight couples.

I don't know if there are expectations on gay couples to adopt or use surrogates or donors.

But I'm quite certain that throughout history, marriage has been in large part about procreating.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

...I reject the notion that a relationship you have to work hard at is worth having.

But what in life worth having doesn't involve hard work? Making a living, getting to level 90 in World of Warcraft, fixing my car window.

Quote:

My mom's family is Catholic, and they don't believe in divorce, so they worked at keeping their marriages together. Congratulations are in order for some of my mom's relatives. The cousin who worked and worked to preserve her marriage--and did! Well done! Sure, he beat her. And the kids. But they stayed together, and that's the important thing.

Myself and Mrs. Alt were both raised in Catholic homes, my family was more religious yet we both agree that divorce is the only option if we decide we are no longer want to be married. Our choice to stay married or not has nothing to do with religion, why should it be? We shook off those shackles years ago.

Quote:

And then there's the sad cases of those who stay together out of inertia, or because it's expected. My grandparents had a very long marriage. They didn't love each other, not past the first thirty years, but they stuck it out for another forty because it was what was done. Forty years of being unhappy. Worth it?

TM, I get that your family has had some bad experiences with marriage, but that doesn't make marriage a bad idea on principle. If after 30 years my marriage turns more into a roommate situation I won't be upset about that, I'll be almost 90 then....who's gonna want to date me? I probably won't even remember my own name. With that said, if Mrs. Alt is the last face I ever see I will die a very, very happy woman.

Quote:

And I genuinely believe that before you work at something you should determine whether it's worth the expense in time and resources. In most cases, it's not.

It's a leap of fate, this is the beast called being human. Most things aren't worth it but you can have fun on the way to realizing it.

Quote:

This "together forever" crap is romantic drivel, and a great deal of human misery is created and compounded by people buying into the notion of One True Love and then trying to make it work when it's clearly not.

There is no "One True Love" there are at least 12. One might be in Canada, one might be in Russia but since I'm in New York I'll take the one that annoys the hell out of me, hogs the covers, hates visiting my family and who every morning I thank Sky Daddy for putting her in my way.

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by Caper

I'm pretty sure in marriage there was always an expectation to have children....

"Pretty sure", huh?...how could anyone disagree with that?

Quote:

But I'm quite certain that throughout history, marriage has been in large part about procreating.

The writing is on the wall...it has been for some time. Either people will accept that things change, and that the GLBT community has the RIGHT to get married, or they will be trampled under the footsteps of history.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by Caper

I'm pretty sure in marriage there was always an expectation to have children.

Even for older couples? I married for the first time at 46, the baby ship had sailed.

[Caper]

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

Even for older couples? I married for the first time at 46, the baby ship had sailed.

I doubt there was any expectation for children for older couples throughout history...... I doubt they made up a large % of marriages... except older men marrying younger women.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Caper

But I'm quite certain that throughout history, marriage has been in large part about procreating.

I don't agree. One could as easily state that marriage has been in large part about pots and pans.

Current Population Clock
U.S. 314,755,715
World 7,051,819,744

7 Billion, that's with a "B".

If those numbers were a quarter of what they are now we would have no rational basis to fear the demise of the human race. Let's assume that marriage was at one time intended to ensure procreation. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that gay marriage could even possibly impact procreation.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Yes, it is. Yay for modern redefinitions, but the only real marriages are the first life-long oaths before God of a man and a woman together, period.

So all those people who got married before the wrong god, or got married without the mention of any god, don't have real marriages? That's asinine.

[Caper]

Originally Posted by RandFan

If those numbers were a quarter of what they are now we would have no rational basis to fear the demise of the human race. Let's assume that marriage was at one time intended to ensure procreation. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that gay marriage could even possibly impact procreation.

I'm not arguing that at all. Why is that at all a relevant response to my post?

[R.A.F.]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

...the only real marriages are the first life-long oaths before God of a man and a woman together, period.

So before there was religion, everyone was "living in sin"?, and any "marriage" they might have had (and called by a different name) were not "real"?


...oh, and those "life long" oaths are patently worthless since half of all marriages end in divorce.


"Defending" hetro marriage with god is irrelevant...as soon as you make it "about god", you have lost the argument.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Caper

I doubt there was any expectation for children for older couples throughout history...... I doubt they made up a large % of marriages... except older men marrying younger women.

Meh~ Don't care doesn't matter.

BTW: I've seen every reenactment video for the Prop 8 trial. Defendants were given the opportunity to provide evidence to demonstrate that gay marriage would change the dynamic of marriage and procreation in any negative way. More importantly, the defense was asked pointedly for the evidence because the judge had expected such evidence would be introduced given that the premise was part of the defense's position. It should be noted that the judge was a little disappointed when the evidence was not forth coming.

So, the defendants in the trial didn't have it, you?

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

But what in life worth having doesn't involve hard work? Making a living, getting to level 90 in World of Warcraft, fixing my car window.

But if you had to eat ten raw pigs for breakfast daily to make a living, if you had to win 10,000 Tol Barads without taking damage to reach 90, if you had to smelt the glass yourself in Siberia and walk it back to your car over a land bridge, that would be hard work that isn't worth doing. I never said hard work is necessarily bad, just that some work is harder than the results justify.

Quote:

Myself and Mrs. Alt were both raised in Catholic homes, my family was more religious yet we both agree that divorce is the only option if we decide we are no longer want to be married. Our choice to stay married or not has nothing to do with religion, why should it be? We shook off those shackles years ago.

I was citing the reason why, in my example of marriages that shouldn't have stuck together, they did. The Methodist side of the family went ahead with divorces when they felt them justified.

Quote:

TM, I get that your family has had some bad experiences with marriage, but that doesn't make marriage a bad idea on principle. If after 30 years my marriage turns more into a roommate situation I won't be upset about that, I'll be almost 90 then....who's gonna want to date me? I probably won't even remember my own name. With that said, if Mrs. Alt is the last face I ever see I will die a very, very happy woman.

Which is nice for you. If you get that I don't consider marriage a good idea on the basis of my observations, you should equally get that you consider marriage a good idea on the basis of your observations. If our experiences cancel each other out, then what can we judge by? Statistics? That divorce rate isn't going down.

Quote:

It's a leap of fate, this is the beast called being human. Most things aren't worth it but you can have fun on the way to realizing it.

I think you meant "faith" there. A Freudian would say it was a subconsious slip--that perhaps you believe in soppily romantic predestined Disney-style True Wuv! :-)

Quote:

There is no "One True Love" there are at least 12. One might be in Canada, one might be in Russia but since I'm in New York I'll take the one that annoys the hell out of me, hogs the covers, hates visiting my family and who every morning I thank Sky Daddy for putting her in my way.

And for every realist about their relationship you get how many idealistic dreaming morons? Who grow up fed on the idea that there's one (exactly one, no more, no less) Perfect Match for them? And wind up rejecting all suitors because they aren't THE ONE? Or they "settle", consciously deciding "good enough" but secretly resenting that for the rest of their marriage?

I think it would be impossible to get the numbers on it because people aren't honest with themselves, much less people taking polls of such things, but I'd be unsurprised to discover that most marriages occured just because people felt they ought to, to not be alone, because it's what's expected, because they got scared they'd never find anybody, because they want kids or to feel like grownups or to show up Suzy or to prove something.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Caper

I'm not arguing that at all. Why is that at all a relevant response to my post?

Because it's an irrelevant point to bring up. Procreation has nothing to do with marriage. It's a red herring. Why did you think your point was relevant to the discussion?

[Caper]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Meh~ Don't care doesn't matter.

BTW: I've seen every reenactment video for the Prop 8 trial. Defendants were given the opportunity to provide evidence to demonstrate that gay marriage would change the dynamic of marriage and procreation in any negative way. More importantly, the defense was asked pointedly for the evidence because the judge had expected such evidence would be introduced given that the premise was part of the defense's position. It should be noted that the judge was a little disappointed when the evidence was not forth coming.

So, the defendants in the trial didn't have it, you?

Why would I have it? I don't care of homosexuals marry.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Caper

Why would I have it? I don't care of homosexuals marry.

Why are you involved with this thread?

Originally Posted by Caper

I doubt there was any expectation for children for older couples throughout history...... I doubt they made up a large % of marriages... except older men marrying younger women.

What exactly is your point?

I'm sorry if I'm completely failing to understand what you are on about but I'm not sure the fault is all mine.

[R.A.F.]

It's really all about hate. Finding some minority that one can direct that hate, at. Gays make an "easy" target, and god makes the perfect scapegoat, ie., because god wants you to hate gays...it says so in the bible.