Best Arguments For and Against Gay Marriage?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

Agreed. Or any three adults for that matter.

No. See discrimination based on number is held to a different standard than sex.

Also polygamy is a change to marriage. Letting same sex couples marry has no legal effect in opposite sex marriages. Letting people have more than two people in a marriage or be in more than one marriage calls for a reevaluation of all of the 1100 effects of marriage. That is much more complex and can impact the marriage of a heterosexual couple.

So while I have nothing against the legal recognition of polyamorous relationships, I also am not calling for it. It is a very different issue than same sex marriage.

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

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.

Sorry, my mistake, I thought what you meant was 'sexual preference' when you said 'sex based'. You are correct.

[Merton]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

That is simply the way it IS (mostly). perhaps not the way it should be.
I didnt make the rules, just pointing them out.

Okay, but what does "the way it is" have to do with the discussion of "the way it should be"? Unless you're arguing that tradition alone is justification for continuing a practice, I don't see how these criteria are relevant.

[Merton]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

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?

As is probably now clear from my most recent comment, the highlighted bit is my question.

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

No. See discrimination based on number is held to a different standard than sex.

Also polygamy is a change to marriage. Letting same sex couples marry has no legal effect in opposite sex marriages. Letting people have more than two people in a marriage or be in more than one marriage calls for a reevaluation of all of the 1100 effects of marriage. That is much more complex and can impact the marriage of a heterosexual couple.

So while I have nothing against the legal recognition of polyamorous relationships, I also am not calling for it. It is a very different issue than same sex marriage.

My only point is that supporting one change in the definition of marriage uses the exact same arguments as supporting the other.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

Sorry, my mistake, I thought what you meant was 'sexual preference' when you said 'sex based'. You are correct.

So you do support sex based discrimination them?

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by Merton

As is probably now clear from my most recent comment, the highlighted bit is my question.

it IS so, why shouldn't it be?

Not trying to be an ass here. But what is being proposed is changing the definition of marriage. If you are proposing this change, than you should be the one providing the arguments as to why.

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

So you do support sex based discrimination them?

Absolutely, do you?

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

My only point is that supporting one change in the definition of marriage uses the exact same arguments as supporting the other.

Just like permitting inter racial marriage used it. How do you support that when you don't believe the arguments used to support it?

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by ponderingturtle

Just like permitting inter racial marriage used it. How do you support that when you don't believe the arguments used to support it?

1 man and 1 woman has nothing to do with race. I am sorry, but this argument, constantly brought up, simply isn't relevant.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

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?

Tradition doesn't justify discrimination.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

we are talking about different things, and doesnnt address a single point that I have made.

We are talking about the right to marry the person you love. Blacks were told they had the right to marry they just didn't have the right to marry someone of a different race. Race is just as arbitrary of a delineation for marriage as is gender.

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Tradition doesn't justify discrimination.

agreed. what does this have to do with discrimination?

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by RandFan

We are talking about the right to marry the person you love. Blacks were told they had the right to marry they just didn't have the right to marry someone of a different race. Race is just as arbitrary of a delineation for marriage as is gender.

I am not sure what love has to do with marriage, and I dont see how gender and race can be equated.

Races are aesthetically different, but for all intents and purposes the same. The genders are similar, but vastly different.

By the way, love your avatar!

[RandFan]

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.

IOW: The states discriminates based on sex, Person A can marry person B so long as they are of a different sex. Discrimination based on sex.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

I am not sure what love has to do with marriage...

I married the person I love. I would have never married someone I didn't love. It would be wrong for someone else to decide that I can't marry the person I love (so long as we are both consenting adults).

Quote:

, and I dont see how gender and race can be equated.

I've explained it to you and you are ignoring my argument. Both are arbitrary.

Quote:

Races are aesthetically different, but for all intents and purposes the same. The genders are similar, but vastly different.

This is just special pleading. You are finding some distinction you can hang your hat on but you don't tell us why the difference is important. Why is the difference important?

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by RandFan

IOW: The states discriminates based on sex, Person A can marry person B so long as they are of a different sex. Discrimination based on sex.

Sorry, what I meant there and what I thought I was quoting was descrimination based on sexual preference, not just sex. I dont agree with discrimination based on sexual preference.

I believe descrimination based on sex is necesary at times, depending on the circumstances.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

agreed. what does this have to do with discrimination?

That marriage has been an institution between a man and a woman is no reason to assume that it should be just an institution between a man and a woman.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

1 man and 1 woman has nothing to do with race. I am sorry, but this argument, constantly brought up, simply isn't relevant.

But why is it so fundamental when I the rule

1 man and 1 woman of the same race wasn't?

Why is that change ok and this one not?

Both only effect a small percentage of marriages, and have no effect what so ever on the majority of marriages.

This was the last major expansion of marriage. Why not look back?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

I believe descrimination based on sex is necesary at times, depending on the circumstances.

I'm not sure how that changes anything.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

agreed. what does this have to do with discrimination?

Remember just now when you agreed that you were happy to discriminate based on sex, because of tradition?

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

agreed. what does this have to do with discrimination?

The part where you are citing tradition as a reason for discriminating against certain people.

[Merton]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

it IS so, why shouldn't it be?

Not trying to be an ass here. But what is being proposed is changing the definition of marriage. If you are proposing this change, than you should be the one providing the arguments as to why.

No, that's a fair request.

The first requirement is great, but deals more with contract law than any relationship; one must understand contractual obligations before he or she can participate in them. Age is probably not the most accurate metric to determine this, but it's convenience is hard to deny.

The second requirement (opposite gender) seems to be based on the idea that marriage is about procreation, yet there doesn't seem to be a rationale for why the legal benefits of marriage should only be enjoyed by couples that have or will have children. In fact, the marriage of non-breeding heterosexual couples suggests that procreation ought not to be a consideration at all. This is further compounded by the blatantly false claim by religious folk that child-rearing requires both masculine and feminine components.

The third criterion (marriage is between only two people) suffers from essentially the same criticism as the second. Without justification, these two requirements ought to be dismissed.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

agreed. what does this have to do with discrimination?

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

The part where you are citing tradition as a reason for discriminating against certain people.

That which has come to define marriage is tradition. When someone states what marriage is, what is the basis if it isn't tradition?

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I married the person I love. I would have never married someone I didn't love. It would be wrong for someone else to decide that I can't marry the person I love (so long as we are both consenting adults).

Thats great1

Originally Posted by RandFan

I've explained it to you and you are ignoring my argument. Both are arbitrary.

I assume you can tell why its normal for asian and white guys to share a lockeroom, but not men and a women? please be serious.

Originally Posted by RandFan

This is just special pleading. You are finding some distinction you can hang your hat on but you don't tell us why the difference is important. Why is the difference important

Special pleading would be trying to find an exemption to the standard definition of marriage without providing evidence why it should be so.
Men and women are clearly different in many ways, you can ignore the obvious if you'd like.

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by Merton

No, that's a fair request.

The second requirement (opposite gender) seems to be based on the idea that marriage is about procreation, yet there doesn't seem to be a rationale for why the legal benefits of marriage should only be enjoyed by couples that have or will have children. In fact, the marriage of non-breeding heterosexual couples suggests that procreation ought not to be a consideration at all. This is further compounded by the blatantly false claim by religious folk that child-rearing requires both masculine and feminine components.

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

Originally Posted by Merton

The third criterion (marriage is between only two people) suffers from essentially the same criticism as the second. Without justification, these two requirements ought to be dismissed.

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

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

I assume you can tell why its normal for asian and white guys to share a lockeroom, but not men and a women?

Why is it not okay for men and women to share a locker room? Please stop with the appeals to intuition. Argue from axiomatic principles and not tradition.

Quote:

please be serious.

A.) I'm dead serious. B.) Your browbeating won't help advance the discussion.

Quote:

Special pleading would be trying to find an exemption to the standard definition of marriage without providing evidence why it should be so.
Men and women are clearly different in many ways, you can ignore the obvious if you'd like.

Text book special pleading. That there is a difference doesn't make the difference a rational basis for discrimination. Until you explain why it's okay to discriminate based on sex and/or sexual preference then you are special pleading.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

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

There is no law forcing married people to live together. So I am cool with any two people.

Quote:

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

The issue here is that many poly relationships not everyone is in a relationship with everyone else. The other is that it might be abusive to expand a benefit granted to a couple to a potentially arbitrarily large group. So while I would support recognition of poly relationships they do not fit neatly and cleanly into the legal institution of marriage.

As legally men and women are equal having two of either in a marriage is not a complex issue legally. Wondering how your wifes divorce from her other husband effects you is a legally complex issue.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

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.

And yet the current definition of marriage in the USA (and many other places) has changed enormously since the days when women were basically property. The reason that two "warriors" wouldn't be expected to marry is because marriage wasn't something engaged in by equals. It was essentially a business arrangement between a man and a woman's father. Sorry, but the "tradition" argument still isn't cutting it.

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

The part where you are citing tradition as a reason for discriminating against certain people.

I don't believe I was citing tradition, just the law as it pertains to the current definition of marriage. Not everywhere of course.

I fail to see which 'certain people' are being discrimnated against.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

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

Should any two people of the opposite sex who choose to live together be able to get the benefits of marriage? You've been asked this question before. Please to answer it?

Quote:

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

I honestly don't know. Why not let those people come forward and make their case. Let the state and those opposed (if there are any) make their case. Until then I don't know but more importantly I don't find it at all helpful to this question. It serves to distract and not elucidate.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

I don't believe I was citing tradition, just the law as it pertains to the current definition of marriage. Not everywhere of course.

Common law is based in no small part on tradition (see case law/precedent).

Quote:

I fail to see which 'certain people' are being discrimnated against.

Gays and lesbians are "certain people".

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Why is it not okay for men and women to share a locker room? Please stop with the appeals to intuition. Argue from axiomatic principles and not tradition.

A.) I'm dead serious. B.) Your browbeating won't help advance the discussion.

Text book special pleading. That there is a difference doesn't make the difference a rational basis for discrimination. Until you explain why it's okay to discriminate based on sex and/or sexual preference then you are special pleading.

But no one is being discriminated against by sexual prefernce, only by gender, which happens frequently in society for all manner of reasons.

[Foster Zygote]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

But no one is being discriminated against by sexual prefernce, only by gender,...

Using your logic, it would be perfectly acceptable to deny women the right to vote, would it not? After all, they would only be discriminated against based on their gender, not their sexual preference.

Quote:

...which happens frequently in society for all manner of reasons.

Again, frequency or tradition do not make right.

[ponderingturtle]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

But no one is being discriminated against by sexual prefernce, only by gender, which happens frequently in society for all manner of reasons.

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

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

But no one is being discriminated against by sexual prefernce, only by gender, which happens frequently in society for all manner of reasons.

• That it happens frequently doesn't make it okay.
• BTW: People can legally discriminate based on the color of one's skin (see the right of association).
• In fact, absent a compelling reason, discriminating based on sex and/or the color of one's skin is illegal in many cases.

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Should any two people of the opposite sex who choose to live together be able to get the benefits of marriage? You've been asked this question before. Please to answer it?

Well, it would seem to me that Marriage has been about a man and a woman getting together with the reasonable expectation that it would lead to children. The institution of marriage was meant to protect that family unit. So I will say no. But truth be told, I couldn't care less either way.

Originally Posted by RandFan

I honestly don't know. Why not let those people come forward and make their case. Let the state and those opposed (if there are any) make their case. Until then I don't know but more importantly I don't find it at all helpful to this question. It serves to distract and not elucidate.

I see it as being the same argument.

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Common law is based in no small part on tradition (see case law/precedent).

Gays and lesbians are "certain people".

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

[Oxford Comma]

Originally Posted by Foster Zygote

Using your logic, it would be perfectly acceptable to deny women the right to vote, would it not? After all, they would only be discriminated against based on their gender, not their sexual preference.


Again, frequency or tradition do not make right.

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

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

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by Oxford Comma

Well, it would seem to me that Marriage has been about a man and a woman getting together with the reasonable expectation that it would lead to children. The institution of marriage was meant to protect that family unit. So I will say no. But truth be told, I couldn't care less either way.

See the highlighted portion of your text? We have a word for that, "tradition".

Quote:

I see it as being the same argument.

Let's assume that it is. Let's also assume that you and I are against group marriage. Does that then make us both against heterosexual marriage?