Best Arguments For and Against Gay Marriage?

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by bruto

In the meantime, though, I stand by the notion that, although it is far from the only consideration, and marriage is considered by many if not most to be an overall social benefit even for the childless, child welfare remains a major consideration.

I agree with this, in principle. I'll go one step farther, in fact, and say that the only worthwhile considerations that would justify state interference in the conduct of one's sexual relationships are all related to the welfare of children, or to closely related reproductive issues. In my opinion, love is not the province of the state, but babies are.

My contention is that this has been abandoned by our current state of marriage laws. As lowpro says, it's a non-starter.

What's left is a property sharing agreement between two adults, with a little bit of power-of-attorney like functions thrown in during unusual circumstances. The agreement persists only so long as the partners each find it convenient. That facilitates economic cooperation for any purpose, which includes child rearing, so I suppose I shouldn't call it useless. It serves a purpose, but Avalon's suggestion would be just as good and, in fact, better.

To truly offer the sort of protections that marriage once offered, it would have to be changed to an agreement that was not so easily abandoned.

Meanwhile, gay marriage advocates are nearly universal in demanding that the state recognize their love, just as they do for heterosexual couples. In a very limited sense, I agree. I want the state to absolutely ignore love, for every couple. It's none of their business.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

The purely legal side of marriage is extremely useful. It creates a cheap and convenient method for people who plan to live to together and support each other to tell the government that and be regarded domestically as a unit -- pooling resources, co-owning things, and gaining the relational benefits of being close family.

Which is why if it's the legal benefits that interest us, we really should open it up to non-romantic bonds of the same sort. I bring up siblings a lot because I personally know of unmarried sibling pairs (two sisters, two brothers, a brother and sister) who live together and closely support each other. Completely removed from the context of "marriage," they are excellent examples of where the legal benefits and conveniences would make perfect sense -- but they are explicitly barred from getting married pretty much everywhere.

If siblings are living together, pooling their income, supporting one another and sharing their property jointly, then I see no problem with affording them the same legal rights and protections as any other couple who does the same. But you seem to be making an attempt to associate homosexuality with incest. Frankly, as long as the parties involved are consenting adults, the question of whether or not they have sex is nobody's business but theirs. And there was a time when a man and woman, one of whom was black and the other white, would have been explicitly barred from marrying. I fail to see how the unpopularity of something alone should weigh against allowing it.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

A couple of people in this thread have advocated eliminating marriage altogether as a civil institution, but I want to emphasize that I am not actually one of those people. What I have said is that the institution of marriage as practiced today in the United States is sufficiently useless that you may as well get rid of it. That doesn't mean I want to get rid of it.

This raises the question, why are you here? I don't mean disrespect but what's the point of pointing out how useless marriage is? What is your point? The thread topic is arguments for and against gay marriage. How is your opinion salient to that topic? Being against marriage does not advance the discussion regarding gay marriage. That really is the very definition of red herring. It's pointless and is only meant to distract and divert the discussion.

[Oxford Comma]

Hi All, I am new to this forum and this is my first post. I have been following this discussion and have found it very interesting. I would like to challenge some of the ideas and assertions made here by exploring the 'Against' side of the argument.
there have been plenty of the 'For' arguments.

Here goes:

First of all, I want to challenge the idea that to be against gay Marriage is some sort of bigotry. I find it very close minded when people assume that if you dont agree with their positions that you are either ignorant or bigotted.

I also would like to challenge the idea that Gay marriage is an 'equal rights' issue. Both gays and lesbians have exactly the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as everybody else does. there is no right being trampled on as far as I can tell. This has happened very often historically and no one is trying to prevent it now.

Marriage as it is generally understood has three requirements. Age, gender and number.

A) varying age limits apply in various places and can be debated, but I think 15-18 are the minumums in most places, some requiring parental consent.
B)Marriage is accepted as being between a man and a woman.
C)specifically, 1 male and 1 female

It seems to me, that if you support changing category B, you must also support changing category C. I have yet to hear a valid argument against that. Either change none, or accept that both should be changed. It is obvious why A is not to be messed with.

Throughout history, marriage has generally been between one man and one woman although there is a pretty strong historical precedent for polygamous unions.

Even in societies that valued love between males, there has never been a precedent of marriage between men. Love was between men and marriage with a woman was for making babies and building families. I dont think you could call these societies homophobic or bigoted. (many great warrior societies encouraged this as men would fight harder for someone they loved, so the theory goes)

In these societies, and throughout history, it was recognise that marriage would guarantee paternity of the children (in theory) and that the father was committed to raising and supporting those children. This is not to say that this is the only accepted use of marriage, but it seem that it forms the basis of what marriage was for.

Furthermore, it seems that Gays are not asking for 'equal rights' but special treatment. Unless you think that 2 straight roomates should also be able to get married in order to save on taxes etc. than it seems that you think they deserve special treatment. (males and females can do the same now, without any requirement of a sexual component to their relationship, as far as I know)

The US is considered a democratic society, and it would seem that the vast majority of people are against gay marriage, or changing the definition of marriage at all. It would seem that a sensible compromise would be to support and push for civil unions, thereby guaranteeing the same advantages as married couples and at the same time meeting their opponents in the middle.


Now, before anyone jumps down my throat with the inevitable assumptions of my bigotry, understand that I have a gay child whom I love and respect (and often debate this topic with) and I live in the gaybourhood..... they are all around me and I think my neighbours are great!
Personally, I can see both sides of the argument and don't have a strong position on either side, but I certainly like hashing out the arguments!

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Meanwhile, gay marriage advocates are nearly universal in demanding that the state recognize their love, just as they do for heterosexual couples. In a very limited sense, I agree. I want the state to absolutely ignore love, for every couple. It's none of their business.

You ought to start a thread on that. Do you have any arguments specific to the thread topic? I don't buy that people give a damn about marriage one way or the other. It's a choice. If you don't want to get married don't get married but that has nothing to do with gays and lesbians who DO want to get married. And that's what the thread is about. Not marriage in general.

Do you have an argument specific to denying gays and lesbians the right to marry?

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Merton

The only problem I see from incestuous relationships is when children are conceived, due to the increased chance of genetic disorders in offspring.

Another thing to consider is that restricting reproduction between consenting adults for that reason might also lead to restrictions for unrelated couples who have been shown through genetic screening to have a higher risk of producing offspring with genetic disorders. The slippery slope to eugenics can't be ignored.

Not to mention the fact that people are still free to have sex whether they are married or not. It's unlikely that the state saying "you can't get married" is going to stop them.

Although, while I think it's an interesting subject for discussion, I agree with RandFan that it's a bit of a red herring. I wonder what happened to "the best argument for recognizing only man-and-woman marriage"?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

Now, before anyone jumps down my throat with the inevitable assumptions of my bigotry, understand that I have a gay child whom I love and respect (and often debate this topic with) and I live in the gaybourhood..... they are all around me and I think my neighbours are great!

I know exactly what you mean. I have lots of friends who are black. Those people are all around me and I think my neighbors are great!. Just because I'm against interracial marriage doesn't mean I'm a bigot. It means I'm against special rights for interracial couples.

Hey Oxford, welcome to the party pal. I should tell you that when I first came here 11 years ago I argued against the rights of gays and lesbians to marry. So I understand your position but find it lacking. To misquote the Bard, the gentlemen doth protest too much.

[Lowpro]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

Hi All, I am new to this forum and this is my first post. I have been following this discussion and have found it very interesting. I would like to challenge some of the ideas and assertions made here by exploring the 'Against' side of the argument.
there have been plenty of the 'For' arguments.

Here goes:

First of all, I want to challenge the idea that to be against gay Marriage is some sort of bigotry. I find it very close minded when people assume that if you dont agree with their positions that you are either ignorant or bigotted.

I also would like to challenge the idea that Gay marriage is an 'equal rights' issue. Both gays and lesbians have exactly the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as everybody else does. there is no right being trampled on as far as I can tell. This has happened very often historically and no one is trying to prevent it now.

Marriage as it is generally understood has three requirements. Age, gender and number.

A) varying age limits apply in various places and can be debated, but I think 15-18 are the minumums in most places, some requiring parental consent.
B)Marriage is accepted as being between a man and a woman.
C)specifically, 1 male and 1 female

It seems to me, that if you support changing category B, you must also support changing category C. I have yet to hear a valid argument against that. Either change none, or accept that both should be changed. It is obvious why A is not to be messed with.

Throughout history, marriage has generally been between one man and one woman although there is a pretty strong historical precedent for polygamous unions.

Even in societies that valued love between males, there has never been a precedent of marriage between men. Love was between men and marriage with a woman was for making babies and building families. I dont think you could call these societies homophobic or bigoted. (many great warrior societies encouraged this as men would fight harder for someone they loved, so the theory goes)

In these societies, and throughout history, it was recognise that marriage would guarantee paternity of the children (in theory) and that the father was committed to raising and supporting those children. This is not to say that this is the only accepted use of marriage, but it seem that it forms the basis of what marriage was for.

Furthermore, it seems that Gays are not asking for 'equal rights' but special treatment. Unless you think that 2 straight roomates should also be able to get married in order to save on taxes etc. than it seems that you think they deserve special treatment. (males and females can do the same now, without any requirement of a sexual component to their relationship, as far as I know)

The US is considered a democratic society, and it would seem that the vast majority of people are against gay marriage, or changing the definition of marriage at all. It would seem that a sensible compromise would be to support and push for civil unions, thereby guaranteeing the same advantages as married couples and at the same time meeting their opponents in the middle.


Now, before anyone jumps down my throat with the inevitable assumptions of my bigotry, understand that I have a gay child whom I love and respect (and often debate this topic with) and I live in the gaybourhood..... they are all around me and I think my neighbours are great!
Personally, I can see both sides of the argument and don't have a strong position on either side, but I certainly like hashing out the arguments!

I would just say assumption C is a misunderstanding of assumption B. Assumption C shouldn't be exclusive, nor should B. It was the same way before on the issue of interracial marriage and it was reevaluated. It's time that it happened again. Here's what should happen, it should read "Marriage is between two consenting adults" and not be concerned with the issue of gender. As you can see in this thread, there is no logical argument for gender distinction and if someone wants to just rely on "well it's tradition" so was interracial marriage so I extend the argument.

That's not a "special treatment" for gays it's a reevaluation of the law because as it stands it does not offer them the same rights extended to other members. If anything, heterosexual couples are the ones getting special treatment

[RandFan]

Marrying the person you love is NOT a special right.

[Foster Zygote]

Welcome.

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

Marriage as it is generally understood has three requirements. Age, gender and number.

A) varying age limits apply in various places and can be debated, but I think 15-18 are the minumums in most places, some requiring parental consent.
B)Marriage is accepted as being between a man and a woman.
C)specifically, 1 male and 1 female

It seems to me, that if you support changing category B, you must also support changing category C. I have yet to hear a valid argument against that. Either change none, or accept that both should be changed. It is obvious why A is not to be messed with.

Why shouldn't B and C change?

Quote:

Throughout history, marriage has generally been between one man and one woman although there is a pretty strong historical precedent for polygamous unions.

Can you cite some evidence that marriage has generally been between one man and one woman throughout human history?

Quote:

Even in societies that valued love between males, there has never been a precedent of marriage between men. Love was between men and marriage with a woman was for making babies and building families. I dont think you could call these societies homophobic or bigoted. (many great warrior societies encouraged this as men would fight harder for someone they loved, so the theory goes)

Right. Women were property. Those unions bore little resemblance to what we consider to be marriage today.

Quote:

In these societies, and throughout history, it was recognise that marriage would guarantee paternity of the children (in theory) and that the father was committed to raising and supporting those children. This is not to say that this is the only accepted use of marriage, but it seem that it forms the basis of what marriage was for.

It was so strongly recognized that in many societies a man had the right to immediately kill his wife if he discovered that she'd had sex with another man. If a man discovered that his new bride wasn't a virgin she would be returned to her father who would refund the purchase price and then her father would kill her.

Quote:

Furthermore, it seems that Gays are not asking for 'equal rights' but special treatment. Unless you think that 2 straight roomates should also be able to get married in order to save on taxes etc. than it seems that you think they deserve special treatment. (males and females can do the same now, without any requirement of a sexual component to their relationship, as far as I know)

How do you compare being roommates with being married?

Quote:

The US is considered a democratic society, and it would seem that the vast majority of people are against gay marriage, or changing the definition of marriage at all. It would seem that a sensible compromise would be to support and push for civil unions, thereby guaranteeing the same advantages as married couples and at the same time meeting their opponents in the middle.

And in the South the vast majority of people were against allowing African Americans equal rights. Nobody is saying that Baptist churches have to perform gay marriage ceremonies, but allowing them the same legal rights as heterosexual couples is only fair.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Marrying the person you love is NOT a special right.

Of course it is. That special privilege was a large black **** shoved down the nations throat with loving v Virginia and now it will be a gay one!

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Marrying the person you love is NOT a special right.

exactly.

[bikerdruid]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Of course it is. That special privilege was a large black **** shoved down the nations throat with loving v Virginia and now it will be a gay one!

i don't understand what point you are making...

[Merton]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Another thing to consider is that restricting reproduction between consenting adults for that reason might also lead to restrictions for unrelated couples who have been shown through genetic screening to have a higher risk of producing offspring with genetic disorders. The slippery slope to eugenics can't be ignored.

Not to mention the fact that people are still free to have sex whether they are married or not. It's unlikely that the state saying "you can't get married" is going to stop them.

Excellent points.

Quote:

Although, while I think it's an interesting subject for discussion, I agree with RandFan that it's a bit of a red herring. I wonder what happened to "the best argument for recognizing only man-and-woman marriage"?

This isn't really a red herring. If we're talking about rational arguments for/against gay marriage, we need to get at the heart of what marriage is. Otherwise, how can we argue that a group of people ought to be able to marry? To accomplish this, we need data, including a close look at all the groups forbidden from participating (e.g. homosexuals, the polyamorous, immediately related individuals). Once we know what purpose(s) marriage serves, we can compose rational arguments for allowing/prohibiting certain groups to participate in it, specifically, for the purpose of this thread, homosexuals.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Merton

This isn't really a red herring. If we're talking about rational arguments for/against gay marriage, we need to get at the heart of what marriage is. Otherwise, how can we argue that a group of people ought to be able to marry? To accomplish this, we need data, including a close look at all the groups forbidden from participating (e.g. homosexuals, the polyamorous, immediately related individuals). Once we know what purpose(s) marriage serves, we can compose rational arguments for allowing/prohibiting certain groups to participate in it, specifically, for the purpose of this thread, homosexuals.

You've convinced me.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Merton

This isn't really a red herring.

Yes it is.

Quote:

If we're talking about rational arguments for/against gay marriage, we need to get at the heart of what marriage is.

No we don't.

Quote:

Otherwise, how can we argue that a group of people ought to be able to marry? To accomplish this, we need data, including a close look at all the groups forbidden from participating (e.g. homosexuals, the polyamorous, immediately related individuals). Once we know what purpose(s) marriage serves, we can compose rational arguments for allowing/prohibiting certain groups to participate in it, specifically, for the purpose of this thread, homosexuals.

Arguing that marriage is a useless institution tells us absolutely nothing as to whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip.

I'm sorry but I utterly reject your premise. But please, show us the nexus between "marriage is a useless institution" and "gays should not be allowed to be married".

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Welcome.


Why shouldn't B and C change? .

I see no reason why they shouldn't change. I see no reason why they should either.

[/quote]Can you cite some evidence that marriage has generally been between one man and one woman throughout human history? .[/quote]

No, can you cite some evidence that it has not?


[/quote]
Right. Women were property. Those unions bore little resemblance to what we consider to be marriage today..[/quote]

This is certainly true in many places, but not all, and doesn't really address any of the points... unless I have misunderstood?


[/quote]How do you compare being roommates with being married? .[/quote]


I am not. Let me flesh out the argument a little more. Lets say you take the position that 2 men should be allowed to get married. If you say that they should only be allowed to marry if they are gay, then you are asking for a special right, not afforded to straight people.

[/quote]
And in the South the vast majority of people were against allowing African Americans equal rights. Nobody is saying that Baptist churches have to perform gay marriage ceremonies, but allowing them the same legal rights as heterosexual couples is only fair.[/quote]

I fail to see what relevance this has to the topic at hand? no one is denying homosexuals the right to engage in marriage as currently defined. Race isn't gender, but I suspect you already know that.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

But you seem to be making an attempt to associate homosexuality with incest.

No, I'm associating the one-man-one-woman restriction on marriage with other restrictions on marriage that are also based around the assumption that marriage is about breeding.

Once we agree that marriage isn't about kids but is simply a legal partnership with implications in property and next-of-kin rights, the familial restriction (designed originally to prohibit incestual breeding) is as obsolete as the man-and-woman restriction.

[Merton]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Yes it is.

No we don't.

Arguing that marriage is a useless institution tells us absolutely nothing as to whether gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip.

I'm sorry but I utterly reject your premise. But please, show us the nexus between "marriage is a useless institution" and "gays should not be allowed to be married".

I think there's been a miscommunication: Foster Zygote and I were talking about incestuous relationships and why they aren't considered eligible for marriage. This conversation is pertinent to what constitutes marriage, which we can then use to determine which groups, if any, ought to be permitted.

I have stated that I think marriage is a useless institution, but I am not arguing that here (else I wouldn't have said we should let relatives marry); I am merely probing the concept of marriage by examining relationships that are disallowed from it.

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I know exactly what you mean. I have lots of friends who are black. Those people are all around me and I think my neighbors are great!. Just because I'm against interracial marriage doesn't mean I'm a bigot. It means I'm against special rights for interracial couples.

Hey Oxford, welcome to the party pal. I should tell you that when I first came here 11 years ago I argued against the rights of gays and lesbians to marry. So I understand your position but find it lacking. To misquote the Bard, the gentlemen doth protest too much.

Very amusing but hardly relevant. You shouldn't pretend to know what people think.

Thanks for the introduction. I understand this is an emotional issue, but I am looking for logical responses to the points addressed, not strawmen. Race and gender are entirely different things, and homosexuals have the exact same rights as straight folks in this regard. There is nothing stopping a gay man or woman from marrying someone, having kids etc. All that is required is that the person be of the other gender.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

I am not. Let me flesh out the argument a little more. Lets say you take the position that 2 men should be allowed to get married. If you say that they should only be allowed to marry if they are gay, then you are asking for a special right, not afforded to straight people.

I don't know who told you that they couldn't. Perhaps I'm missing something. Can you give me a real world example where the state must first verify a couple's gayness before issuing a marriage license?

[Oxford Comma]

sorry for the above post, not familiar with the 'quote' buttons yet!

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I don't know who told you that they couldn't. Perhaps I'm missing something. Can you give me a real world example where the state must first verify a couple's gayness before issuing a marriage license?

I never said that they couldn't, just putting it out there. There are many different places where gay marriage is legal, each with different expectations and requirements I would imagine, as with traditional marriage.

Should I take it then, that you believe that female roomates should be able to get married to take advantage of the tax benefits?

[bruto]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm happy to consider it. When folks are demanding those benefits then we can have a national dialog about it like we have had with gay marriage. Those individuals can petition the courts to seek change and experts can testify as they have in the many gay and lesbian cases that have reached the court. Most notably Prop 8.

Until then it's a red herring. It belongs to the same set of things as shiny objects and squirrels. It does not inform us about gay marriage. It does not advance the discussion. It's off topic and, IMO, it's intellectually dishonest.

Indeed, this and some other subjects constitute a large part of the "slippery slope" argument that many opponents of gay marriage (or before that, even of civil unions) used. Gays today, then polygamy, incest and little old ladies marrying their cats. Don't laugh, by the way. That last example did indeed arise in the 1990's when civil unions were debated. Which is not to say that there are not individual arguments for any number of alternatives, but bundling gay marriage with alternatives that do not involve the sexual coupling of pairs of adults is a red herring, and although many here may have good arguments on other alternatives, much of the purpose of the red herring among bigots is to remove the sexual element. If you remove the sexual element from the unions, you need not address homosexuality at all, and at worst it allows you to legalize the union and satisfy the judicial argument without forsaking the ability to condemn homosexuals as deviants, discriminate against them in open or subtle ways, indoctrinate their children with anti-gay propaganda, and even, perhaps, to retain or re-introduce laws that regulate sexual behavior or public display of attachment. If you legalize unions between all couples, including chaste sisters or little old ladies and their pets, you retain the right to publicly harass men for holding hands in public.

Some of this may sound a bit silly and paranoid, but you need to look at and read some of the fundamentalist preaching on this, and be aware that this stuff has become a distinct part of the debate on this issue. We heard it all here in Vermont a decade and a half ago. All of it, and it was utterly disgusting, virulent and poisonous. It is telling, I think, that the people who introduced this argument during the original civil union debates were horrific bigots such as Ruth Dwyer and the Bishop of Burlington. Their intention was emphatically not to extend marriage rights, but to scare people into leaving things as they were. In any case, though, the slope is slippery whether or not you're one who likes the ride.

[Lowpro]

Oxford by that logic reciprocity would dictate that a straight man and woman marrying because they're straight is also a special right not afforded to others. That's discrimination actually.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

... I am looking for logical responses to the points addressed, not strawmen.

It's two words. "Straw men". And it's not a straw man anymore than a Modest Proposal was a straw man.

Quote:

Race and gender are entirely different things, and homosexuals have the exact same rights as straight folks in this regard.

I have the right to marry the person I love. Gays and lesbians in California where I live cannot marry the person they love. Yes, race and gender are different but that fact alone is just special pleading.

Quote:

There is nothing stopping a gay man or woman from marrying someone, having kids etc. All that is required is that the person be of the other gender.

And anti-miscegenation laws did not prevent black people or white people from marrying someone, having kids, etc.. All that was required is that the person be of the same race.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

Should I take it then, that you believe that female roomates should be able to get married to take advantage of the tax benefits?

Heterosexuals marry for convenience all of the time. I don't think we need to eliminate heterosexual marriage to keep people from taking advantages of tax breaks.

[Lowpro]

Lol don't let the gays marry because roommates may take advantage of the tax breaks that we give to married couples AND THRN cry foul that giving these existing benefits to gays is special. That's so foul

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by RandFan

It's two words. "Straw men". And it's not a straw man anymore than a Modest Proposal was a straw man.

I have the right to marry the person I love. Gays and lesbians in California where I live cannot marry the person they love. Yes, race and gender are different but that fact alone is just special pleading.

And anti-miscegenation laws did not prevent black people or white people from marrying someone, having kids, etc.. All that was required is that the person be of the same race.

Straw men... is that better? thanks, you're so smart!

"What's love got to do with it?' -Tina Turner
Its not special pleading, it is a Straw man to equate the two.

Once again, the race argument is not applicable here. we are talking about different things, and doesnnt address a single point that I have made.

I have no idea just yet how to quote someone by individual line.... bear with me.

[Lowpro]

You can't quote by individual line that I know of. You have to insert your own quote commands outside of the line you want to quote

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

Straw men... is that better? thanks, you're so smart!

"What's love got to do with it?' -Tina Turner
Its not special pleading, it is a Straw man to equate the two.

Once again, the race argument is not applicable here. we are talking about different things, and doesnnt address a single point that I have made.

I have no idea just yet how to quote someone by individual line.... bear with me.

The reason your previous quote attempt faiiledd is that the tag is case sensitive.

Also,you addeed a / character to the opening tag.


It shoue be

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

Very amusing but hardly relevant. You shouldn't pretend to know what people think.

Thanks for the introduction. I understand this is an emotional issue, but I am looking for logical responses to the points addressed, not strawmen. Race and gender are entirely different things, and homosexuals have the exact same rights as straight folks in this regard. There is nothing stopping a gay man or woman from marrying someone, having kids etc. All that is required is that the person be of the other gender.

So sex based discrimination good, race based discrimination bad?

Admittedly blacks had just as many as many rights as whites. They both had to stick to their own kind. That was the logic that kept anti miscegenation laws on the books.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

I never said that they couldn't, just putting it out there. There are many different places where gay marriage is legal, each with different expectations and requirements I would imagine, as with traditional marriage.

The thing is same sex marriage has nothing to do with tests of sexuality. Two bisexuals want to get married can they?

That and how many homosexuals get married shows that there is no discrimination based om sexuality only based on sex.

What I want is to remove that and let any two adults get married. Then there is no test for sex or sexuality.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

The reason your previous quote attempt faiiledd is that the tag is case sensitive.

Also,you addeed a / character to the opening tag.


It shoue be

The tag is not case sensitive. You just can't close a quote box that hasn't been opened. So as they were all close quote box tags it didn't work.

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So sex based discrimination good, race based discrimination bad?

Admittedly blacks had just as many as many rights as whites. They both had to stick to their own kind. That was the logic that kept anti miscegenation laws on the books.

I don't agree with sex based discrimination at all.

That is not whats happening. Homosexuals are free to marry whomever they like, provied they fit the three criterea listed.

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

The reason your previous quote attempt faiiledd is that the tag is case sensitive.

Also,you addeed a / character to the opening tag.


It shoue be

Thanks!

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

The thing is same sex marriage has nothing to do with tests of sexuality. Two bisexuals want to get married can they?

That and how many homosexuals get married shows that there is no discrimination based om sexuality only based on sex.

What I want is to remove that and let any two adults get married. Then there is no test for sex or sexuality.

Agreed. Or any three adults for that matter.

[Merton]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

I don't agree with sex based discrimination at all.

That is not whats happening. Homosexuals are free to marry whomever they like, provied they fit the three criterea listed.

Why is marriage only for those relationships that fit your proposed criteria though?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

I don't agree with sex based discrimination at all.

That is not whats happening. Homosexuals are free to marry whomever they like, provied they fit the three criterea listed.

You are explicitly discriminating based on sex. That is the trait you look at when you class them as man and woman. Hence you are discriminating based on it. Just like you discriminate on visual acuity in the vision test at the DMV.

Discrimination means to take those differences into account. It is by itself neutral there is discrimination that is good like preventing blind people from driving and discrimination I don't agree with like saying you can only marry someone of the same race.

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by Merton

Why is marriage only for those relationships that fit your proposed criteria though?

Even those societies that allowed and even encouraged homosexual relationships, there was never thought to be any requirement for marriage between same sex couples. True love was between two warriors, but marriage and women were for families and children.

The criterea I submitted is just what has been the tradition and what fits the current definition of marriage through most of the USA.

You are asking me why this is so? or why should it be so?