Gay marriage

[Kamietsu]

Marriage and civil unions are basically teh same thing, one having mostly religious ties, the other having only state ties. But what they grant is basically the same exact thing. The problem here is with a word. That's it. That's all I have been able to figure out in every single debate about this, ever. I've never, or at least very rarely, ever seen anyone dislike the civil union idea for homosexual couples. In fact, most people I've ever seen discuss it, are fine with it. Mainly, people who want marriage to be between opposite genders are the ones talking up civil unions for homosexuals the most. Even I don't see a problem with civil unions. The problem arises when you start throwing around teh word marriage.

If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it's a cow? That's what's going on. There are two equal options: Marriage, and Civil Unions. Both the same, except their names. Call it a Civil Union, no one really has a problem. But start calling that Civil union a marriage, all hell breaks loose(obviously a slight over exaggeration).

I know many homosexual couples complain about only able to get a civil union. And i can understand that. And I know it's a pretty hot religious issue as well. God created man and woman, and told them to be fruitful. Obviously, two women or men cannot reproduce with each other, although they can get a child through various means. And using a reason such as a child growing up in a homosexual household could/might/will have some sort of problems/issues/differences is pretty biased. It doesn't matter as much what gender your parents are. What matters is how good your parents are, period. A child abused by his parents, be them homosexual or straight, aren't going to develop too differently from a child being abused by the opposite possible parent pairing. Yes, there are possibly some issues with a lack of a father figure, or mother figure, but it comes down to mostly how the child develops entirely, not on just one or two sole aspects. 

I propose this solution:

There should be two separate marriages.

Marriage-1 -- A union through the state.
Marriage-A -- A union through the church.

If the church doesn't want marry two people, then the state can. The only difference between the two marriages is the identifier on the end of the word.

[Belthus]

For those who would advocate for the liberalization of marriage to something other than a special status between one man and one woman, what should the new definition be?  Specifically, should it be limited to 2 people?  Do they have to be sexually involved?  What obligations do the married persons have to each other/anyone else?

You want a general rule for all time? That's impractical. People's understanding of what is right and wrong changes over time. Slavery used to be seen as OK, and the Bible told masters how to treat their slaves and told slaves to obey their masters. Now we realize that slavery is bad. Pro-slavery people put forth principles that justified the practice, including Bible references. What they said with respect to the Bible is true: it does condone slavery. Yet our collective experience with slavery has shown us that it is an evil institution.

How our ideas of right and wrong change involves a dialogue between victims of a practice and the rest of society. That's how it worked for Blacks and civil rights, for women's suffrage, for industrial workers being overworked and maimed, and so on. The people who feel wronged or left out speak up, in one way or another. If we are lucky, they speak up in constructive ways that allow for all sides to get along later. But at times, the dialogue between victims and oppressors can become violent, involving blood vengeance or war. Victims can victimize others in their anger.

At the moment, gay people are standing up and saying that they deserve civic equality. I think that their case has merit. They contribute to society and are not a threat, to marriage or anything else. Discrimination against them originates almost entirely from religious bigotry. That is unacceptable in a country with a secular government. (I mean secular in the sense of neutral with respect to religions, not anti-religious like the Soviet Union was.)

What about other groups? We will examine the merits of their case when they bring it to our attention. What would be the consequences of changing the law? Are they truly being anti-social, or are they subject to old prejudices that have no rational basis?

[Kazawrath]

The problem in my eyes is not that they can't marry its that rights have been taken away form them.making homosexuals seem diffrent from hetrosexuals.

[ZarathustraIX]

in modern society people mostly marry for love, but it's still easy to make an argument around the same premise as your original one except concerning the government picking and choosing who can get financial benefits and whatnot. It could be compared to church state separation in that sense

Easy? Perhaps. But should we?
Marriage is something that is traditionally done out of love (and marriage is something that is only sensical when based on tradition).
People who want gay marriage want it because they feel that their love is considered less - that they, as people, are considered less - than heterosexual people. And to be frank, this is true. They ARE considered less.

Marriage isn't traditionally done out of love, it really wasn't. Marriage has existed for a long time, longer then women have had the right to choose who they want to marry

That depends on what you consider traditional. I SHOULD have clarified this. By 'traditional', I didn't mean 'right back at the beginning.' I meant more 1800 (actually, probably more Victorian era) to about the 1950s.
That was what a person did in those days. You fell in love with the nearest person of similar social standing and married them.

Not only this, but you look at the unmarried. There's a WORD for people (actually, women. The male word - bachelor - has positive connotations) who haven't gotten married, and that's 'Spinster'. As far as I can figure out, 'Spinster' means 'woman over twenty-five who hasn't married.'
Now. To me, this suggests a sick society. Something egregious, ugly, and monstrous.

umm. okay? I've never heard that term in my life

Not in your life, no. I'm sure the term was in use in the 'fifties, but the most recent empirical evidence I have of its use was in late-1800s novels. The reason I say this is because I believe it's recent enough that it still affects how many people think.

My point here is this: You're saying that marriage is done for financial reasons. This is wrong, man. Purely wrong. Marriage is something you do 'cos you're considered inferior if you don't. There's a world, an entire world, where if you don't get married before you're twenty-five you're somehow less than human, and this world is the one before ours.

No im not saying that. Perhaps if you had read my post then you would have seen that I said in a modern society marriage is done out of love. It's really hard to know how to respond to this other then to ask for evidence

When you responded to Kazawrath you said that you disagreed with his reasoning (i.e., love), that you agreed with the idea that homosexuals shouldn't be excluded, but that they shouldn't be excluded from the financial/tax benefits. (I don't know how to include the quote here.) Was I wrong to have interpreted this as meaning that you thought love didn't matter? Did I perhaps read it wrong? Or are you referring to an earlier post? (I find it hard to keep track of who said what when reading threads. I'm bad with names in general, in fact.) It seems that I'm missing something here.

Marriage, to this world, is success, adulthood, and proof of normality.
This world is dead to me. And dead, it seems, to you. But its ghost lives on. It is to this ghost that gay people appeal, because the ghost DOES exist, and it controls so much of our world.
Gay people want marriage rights. We shouldn't think about what marriage rights mean to US. We should think about what marriage rights mean to the people who want them, and to the people who deny them to them, 'cos that's the world where this debate is taking place.

Wait what? I'm not sure how this world seems dead to me and I'd like it if you didn't put words in my mouth.

I was basing this on my interpretation that you were saying that marriage is a purely financial affair. Apparently this interpretation was wrong, thus I was wrong in my assumption of how you would respond. My bad.

I don't even understand what you're saying, if you're talking about a literal ghost then I'd like to see some evidence.

. . . Um . . . No. No, I wasn't talking about a literal ghost.

If you're trying to make a nice metaphor perhaps you should try to just speak clearly instead.

Perhaps. I remain convinced that metaphors make things easier to explain, though your response is certainly evidence to the contrary.

Also I have to ask which side you're on (I can't really comprehend your post that well)?

My point is this (and I shall try to be succinct): Because marriage was considered to be fundamental to a person's normalcy, by not allowing people to get married they are effectively (and officially) deeming homosexuals to be inferior to normal people.
To me, marriage is not something I want. Perhaps some day I'll make an oath of fidelity to someone. Perhaps I'll try for whatever those tax benefits are. I don't care what we call those acts.
But to people who believe in marriage (to the gay people who want it and those who don't want them to have it) marriage is something that symbolises your normality, your 'goodness', your fitness to be a part of society. To deny them marriage is to deny them their status as first-class (i.e., regular) citizens.

[theloconate]

in modern society people mostly marry for love, but it's still easy to make an argument around the same premise as your original one except concerning the government picking and choosing who can get financial benefits and whatnot. It could be compared to church state separation in that sense

Easy? Perhaps. But should we?
Marriage is something that is traditionally done out of love (and marriage is something that is only sensical when based on tradition).
People who want gay marriage want it because they feel that their love is considered less - that they, as people, are considered less - than heterosexual people. And to be frank, this is true. They ARE considered less.

Marriage isn't traditionally done out of love, it really wasn't. Marriage has existed for a long time, longer then women have had the right to choose who they want to marry

That depends on what you consider traditional. I SHOULD have clarified this. By 'traditional', I didn't mean 'right back at the beginning.' I meant more 1800 (actually, probably more Victorian era) to about the 1950s.
That was what a person did in those days. You fell in love with the nearest person of similar social standing and married them.

are you kidding?! in the Victorian era there was debate over whether women had the right to marry as they please. They certainly didn't marry for love back then

Not only this, but you look at the unmarried. There's a WORD for people (actually, women. The male word - bachelor - has positive connotations) who haven't gotten married, and that's 'Spinster'. As far as I can figure out, 'Spinster' means 'woman over twenty-five who hasn't married.'
Now. To me, this suggests a sick society. Something egregious, ugly, and monstrous.

umm. okay? I've never heard that term in my life

Not in your life, no. I'm sure the term was in use in the 'fifties, but the most recent empirical evidence I have of its use was in late-1800s novels. The reason I say this is because I believe it's recent enough that it still affects how many people think.

so let me get this straight. you make an argument that people get married because of social pressure to get married, you demonstrate this by showing that there is a word for women unmarried over 25 that seems to have negative connotations, and then you admit that it isn't currently in use. In case you haven't noticed the modern era is so much different then that of the Victorian. I don't see how some obscure word from the 1800's would affect modern day thinking

My point here is this: You're saying that marriage is done for financial reasons. This is wrong, man. Purely wrong. Marriage is something you do 'cos you're considered inferior if you don't. There's a world, an entire world, where if you don't get married before you're twenty-five you're somehow less than human, and this world is the one before ours.

No im not saying that. Perhaps if you had read my post then you would have seen that I said in a modern society marriage is done out of love. It's really hard to know how to respond to this other then to ask for evidence

When you responded to Kazawrath you said that you disagreed with his reasoning (i.e., love), that you agreed with the idea that homosexuals shouldn't be excluded, but that they shouldn't be excluded from the financial/tax benefits. (I don't know how to include the quote here.) Was I wrong to have interpreted this as meaning that you thought love didn't matter? Did I perhaps read it wrong? Or are you referring to an earlier post? (I find it hard to keep track of who said what when reading threads. I'm bad with names in general, in fact.) It seems that I'm missing something here.

Yes you did interpret that wrongly, when I said marriage wasn't about love, what i meant is that love can happen with or without marriage. What marriage is is a way of getting financial benefits and other benefits. I'm not saying that love is irrelevant or unimportant in marriage

Marriage, to this world, is success, adulthood, and proof of normality.
This world is dead to me. And dead, it seems, to you. But its ghost lives on. It is to this ghost that gay people appeal, because the ghost DOES exist, and it controls so much of our world.
Gay people want marriage rights. We shouldn't think about what marriage rights mean to US. We should think about what marriage rights mean to the people who want them, and to the people who deny them to them, 'cos that's the world where this debate is taking place.

Wait what? I'm not sure how this world seems dead to me and I'd like it if you didn't put words in my mouth.

I was basing this on my interpretation that you were saying that marriage is a purely financial affair. Apparently this interpretation was wrong, thus I was wrong in my assumption of how you would respond. My bad.

This entire argument has been based on misunderstandings

I don't even understand what you're saying, if you're talking about a literal ghost then I'd like to see some evidence.

. . . Um . . . No. No, I wasn't talking about a literal ghost.

I lol'd

If you're trying to make a nice metaphor perhaps you should try to just speak clearly instead.

Perhaps. I remain convinced that metaphors make things easier to explain, though your response is certainly evidence to the contrary.

Also I have to ask which side you're on (I can't really comprehend your post that well)?

My point is this (and I shall try to be succinct): Because marriage was considered to be fundamental to a person's normalcy, by not allowing people to get married they are effectively (and officially) deeming homosexuals to be inferior to normal people.
To me, marriage is not something I want. Perhaps some day I'll make an oath of fidelity to someone. Perhaps I'll try for whatever those tax benefits are. I don't care what we call those acts.
But to people who believe in marriage (to the gay people who want it and those who don't want them to have it) marriage is something that symbolises your normality, your 'goodness', your fitness to be a part of society. To deny them marriage is to deny them their status as first-class (i.e., regular) citizens.

I agree

[Boingo]

For those who would advocate for the liberalization of marriage to something other than a special status between one man and one woman, what should the new definition be?  Specifically, should it be limited to 2 people?  Do they have to be sexually involved?  What obligations do the married persons have to each other/anyone else?

You want a general rule for all time? That's impractical. People's understanding of what is right and wrong changes over time....

How our ideas of right and wrong change involves a dialogue between victims of a practice and the rest of society. That's how it worked for Blacks and civil rights, for women's suffrage, for industrial workers being overworked and maimed, and so on. The people who feel wronged or left out speak up, in one way or another. If we are lucky, they speak up in constructive ways that allow for all sides to get along later. But at times, the dialogue between victims and oppressors can become violent, involving blood vengeance or war. Victims can victimize others in their anger.

At the moment, gay people are standing up and saying that they deserve civic equality. I think that their case has merit. They contribute to society and are not a threat, to marriage or anything else. Discrimination against them originates almost entirely from religious bigotry. That is unacceptable in a country with a secular government. (I mean secular in the sense of neutral with respect to religions, not anti-religious like the Soviet Union was.)

What about other groups? We will examine the merits of their case when they bring it to our attention. What would be the consequences of changing the law? Are they truly being anti-social, or are they subject to old prejudices that have no rational basis?

You'll pardon me if I call shenanigans on your argument here.  You basically want to replace an existing definition with.....nothing.  You are, it seems, not making an argument for anything, rather simply arguing against the status quo.  And while there may be merit in finding fault with what currently exists, you cannot expect to simply say we will do away with this long-standing, deeply rooted institution with nothing.  You have to be more pragmatic about this.  If you feel that a new standard for marriage ought to replace the current one, then spell it out plainly.  It shouldn't be all that hard, right?

Why, for example, are you arguing only for the inclusion of same sex couples with heterosexual couples?  Why not polygamous arrangements?  Should there be no limits on whom you can marry?  Should persons be allowed to marry their children/siblings?

As for people's understanding of right and wrong changing over time, I partially agree.  There are practices which have changed over time and have become socially unacceptable currently which were fully acceptable previously.  But there's a couple of nuanced parts you are missing:
First, it is obvious that some people feel same-sex marriage is wrong while others feel it is right.  Who, then, decides which of these opposing positions is right?  Is it up to the majority?  Is the newer answer the better answer?
Second, if you are going to promote ethical relativism (that all right/wrong is subjective) in this arena, then this whole debate will be fruitless since either side can say "I decide what is right for me" and go on promoting their cause in good faith.  The logic is unassailable.  Both sides will totally disagree, and both sides will be right (or wrong) depending on who's ethical compass you invoke.

[SeddyRocky]

Why, for example, are you arguing only for the inclusion of same sex couples with heterosexual couples?  Why not polygamous arrangements?  Should there be no limits on whom you can marry?  Should persons be allowed to marry their children/siblings?

I'm guessing this has got something to do with the topic (Gay marriage). Limitless marriage and same-sexed marriage is not quite the same thing. If you wish to discuss the possibility of opening up marriage to everyone and anything, I think that should be posted in another topic.

First, it is obvious that some people feel same-sex marriage is wrong while others feel it is right.  Who, then, decides which of these opposing positions is right?  Is it up to the majority?  Is the newer answer the better answer?

Very good question! And I think that it's partly because that there is no clear answer, that this is an area of discussion. Personally, I recall something like "Majority rules, minority rights" passing through my head, which then again is vague.

Second, if you are going to promote ethical relativism (that all right/wrong is subjective) in this arena, then this whole debate will be fruitless since either side can say "I decide what is right for me" and go on promoting their cause in good faith.  The logic is unassailable.  Both sides will totally disagree, and both sides will be right (or wrong) depending on who's ethical compass you invoke.

A little trivia: the word debate comes from the French word for attack (similar to battle), where no one participating is likely to change their mind. Which is still all we got, unless a universally accepted truth is to be revealed for us in all cases of disagreement.

[QuantumT]

Second, if you are going to promote ethical relativism (that all right/wrong is subjective) in this arena, then this whole debate will be fruitless since either side can say "I decide what is right for me" and go on promoting their cause in good faith.  The logic is unassailable.  Both sides will totally disagree, and both sides will be right (or wrong) depending on who's ethical compass you invoke.

Unless people can ever agree on one absolute ethics system (which seems incredibly unlikely), moral relativism is all that there is. The only difference is whether people realize that or not.

[Belthus]

Why, for example, are you arguing only for the inclusion of same sex couples with heterosexual couples?  Why not polygamous arrangements?  Should there be no limits on whom you can marry?  Should persons be allowed to marry their children/siblings?

Those are separate issues. There is nothing in the fabric of the universe that demands that we answer all those questions at the same time. That is hardly ever done.

As for people's understanding of right and wrong changing over time, I partially agree.  There are practices which have changed over time and have become socially unacceptable currently which were fully acceptable previously.  But there's a couple of nuanced parts you are missing:
First, it is obvious that some people feel same-sex marriage is wrong while others feel it is right.  Who, then, decides which of these opposing positions is right?  Is it up to the majority?  Is the newer answer the better answer?

It's a struggle. If we are lucky, it's a fight waged with ideas, words, peaceful demonstrations, and votes. If we are unlucky, people may kill each other.

Second, if you are going to promote ethical relativism (that all right/wrong is subjective) in this arena, then this whole debate will be fruitless since either side can say "I decide what is right for me" and go on promoting their cause in good faith.  The logic is unassailable.  Both sides will totally disagree, and both sides will be right (or wrong) depending on who's ethical compass you invoke.

I am not promoting ethical relativism. I am saying that our perception or understanding of what is right changes over time. Just as our understanding of the Earth being round, not flat, changed over time. The Earth itself did not change from flat to round. Slavery was wrong in the past, though people in the very distant past may not have been able to see it as wrong. Now we know better.

[theloconate]

First of all, I have an ad on the bottom of the page that's called the biology of sin and it annoys the hell out of me.

Second of all, I'm annoyed that people (Boingo and Numnut) who I have thoroughly refuted have ignored my refutations and still haven't acknowledged that they were refuted, some have even continued posting on this thread (Boingo) without having done so

[Ekki]

As for people's understanding of right and wrong changing over time, I partially agree.  There are practices which have changed over time and have become socially unacceptable currently which were fully acceptable previously.  But there's a couple of nuanced parts you are missing:
First, it is obvious that some people feel same-sex marriage is wrong while others feel it is right.  Who, then, decides which of these opposing positions is right?  Is it up to the majority?  Is the newer answer the better answer?
Second, if you are going to promote ethical relativism (that all right/wrong is subjective) in this arena, then this whole debate will be fruitless since either side can say "I decide what is right for me" and go on promoting their cause in good faith.  The logic is unassailable.  Both sides will totally disagree, and both sides will be right (or wrong) depending on who's ethical compass you invoke.

OK, that's ethical... Simple, do you think there is a vast majority that is against equal rights? Or at least a reasonable amount? Most of the people against "equal marriage" are because: 1- Homophobic religion; 2- They think it would in some way "corrupt" their marriages (I have heard this several times), which is also homophobic, BTW...
Religion changed over time, and it will continue changing, so there are Catholic people that keep on marrying gay couples, on God's word... There's no argument to say "gay people shouldn't marry", it's that easy...

Apart from that, (cold-minded me) there are both overpopulation and increasing poverty and orphanity in the world (it's mathematical)...
Gay couples can't have childs.
Gay couples adopt childs.


I want to know, what's the bad point on two men or two women marrying?

PS: Abstain on talking about more than 2 people or familiars, because that's a whole different ETHIC point, and it should be discussed when it comes out.

[Dragoon1140]

Apart from that, (cold-minded me) there are both overpopulation and increasing poverty and orphanity in the world (it's mathematical)...
Gay couples can't have childs.
Gay couples adopt childs.
So, what's the bad point on two men or two women marrying?

Oh no, strawman!  Strawman!