Gay Marriage (Again)

[Skeptic]

First of all, to make something clear: I oppose gay marriages, yes; but here, I am not opposing the fact of gay marriages (whether it is good or bad) but the LOUSY ARGUMENTS used to support the claim that it is a good idea.

Let us, first of all, seperate the LEGAL from the VERBAL. What we're talking about here is the LEGAL RECOGNITION of gay unions by granting them the same legal rights as married couples. It doesn't matter what it's called: it can be called "marriage", "gayridge", "elrwerroidasoisadjwe", or "fnoord", for all anybody cares.

Now, the arguments I hear from the pro-gay-marriage side are threefold:

1). The following verbal-to-legal argument:

a). "Marriage" is DEFINED (or should be defined), in English, as "any close relationship" (or the equivalent).

b). Therefore, gay people in such a relationship should be called a "married couple".

c). Therefore, gay people in such a relationship should be LEGALLY recognized as married.

2). The "rights" argument: marriage is a right; gay people don't have this right (now); therefore, to end the discrimination against them, marriage should legally be recognized between them.

3). The "racism" argument: marriage used to be restricted to arranged marriages/ marriages between the same race/ etc.; people fought to extend the boundaries of marriage to mixed race marriages and they were right; therefore, those who fight to extend marriage to same-sex couples now are right.

I think that (1), (2), and (3) are all seriously flawed. They all serve a neat rhetorical purpose: they tend to put the opponent on the defensive, apologizing for their "racism", trying to find some reason NOT to include gay marriages in a "definition" of marriage already selected by the opposition, etc. But this is because the flaws in these arguments are easy to overlook.

Here are the flaws:

1). The move from (b) to (c) is obviously illegitimate. Even if "marriage", as a word in English, DOES mean something that inlcudes gay unions, it doesn't follow that what is LEGALLY defined as "marriage" is the same as what is colloquially defined as marriage.

To give an analogy, even if the meaning of the word "cow" mysteriously changed to include dogs, laws governing the movement of cattle would not suddenly apply to Cocker Spaniels. At most, it would mean that the law needs to be amended to read "Cows (excluding canines)" instead of just "cows".

But the move from (a) to (b) is also spurious. What a word means is decided by its USE, not by its "definition". The word marriage is used in a way that does not inlcude homosexual unions--so the word simply DOESN'T MEAN "homosexual unions", period.

To give a "definition" of "marriage" as "loving relationship" (or any other definition that is already rigged to include homosexual unions), and then using this "definition" to prove tha marriage includes homosexual unions is begging the question. It's simply saying "marriage includes homosexual unions, therefore, marriage includes homosexual unions".

Does this mean that use--and therefore meaning--cannot change? Of course not. But it is the supporters' job to, first, show us that the USE of the word "marriage" did in fact change to include homosexual unions, not that it is "defined" that way, and--which is far more important--to show why the LEGAL MEANING of "marriage" should, in consequence, be changed.

It is, of course, legitimate to skip the whole "what the word means in English" argument and go straight to the issue of what legal rights gays should have in unions, whether it's called "marriage" or something else. It is, however, illegitimate to "define" the ENGLISH WORD "Marriage" in a rigged way to include homosexual marriages, and then claim this is a reason for the LEGAL TERM "marriage" to be extended to homosexual unions.

2). "Marriage is a right". Nonsense. It isn't any more of a right than a driver's license or being president. If it was a "right", then polygamy, incest, and so on would also be legal--you cannot deny people a "basic right" just because they're related, or include more than two people, can you? Rather, "marriage" is a LEGAL RECOGNITION OF THE SPECIALITY OF A RELATIONSHIP OF A CERTAIN TYPE BY SOCIETY, not a right.

This, of course, is what is wrong with the "who does it hurt?" or "why should you care?" argument. The recognition of marriage between man and woman as special suffers if other forms are equally recogognized as of the same value, just as giving everybody an "A" in school, or giving all people a driver's license would make a mockery of grading and of the rules of the road.

Again, if you want to argue that homosexual relations ARE equal, in an essential manner, to heterosexual ones from society's point of view and therefore SHOULD be given the same rights, that's your right; but it is simply false to assert that a relationship being recognized as a "marriage" is a "right", or that it doesn't matter what kind of relationship IS recognized as "marriage".

3). "Mixed-race marriages were also once illegal, so one-sex marriages should be, too."--usually used with the not-so-hidden claim that those who opposed same-sex marriages as as bigoted as those who opposed mixed-rac emarriaged.

But this argument is simply a version of the "Galileo" argument ("They laughed at Galileo and he was right, they laugh at me, I am right".) The question is whether marriage should leglly be extended to same-sex marriages. The fact that it was wrongly denied to some groups in the past, doesn't mean that it should be given to ALL groups in the present.

For example, "They" were opposed to incest as well as to mixed-race marriages; that doesn't mean that if they were wrong on opposing the latter they also were wrong in opposing the former. Or, "they" were opposed to communism as well as to civil rights; the fact that "they" were wrong on opposing civil rights doesn't mean one should become a communist.

In sum, I just don't see any good arguments for the gay marriage view. The issue is really a matter of FACT, not of definitions, history, or rights: are gay unions, or are they not, essentially equal to heterosexual ones in a manner that deserves legal recognition as marriage?

I think they aren't; and all the talk about the "rights" of gay people to marry (there isn't any) or the "definition" of marriage (which begs the question), or the accusations of "bigotry" (which is an ad hominem) is simply beside the point.

 

[Lurker]

But the move from (a) to (b) is also spurious. What a word means is decided by its USE, not by its "definition". The word marriage is used in a way that does not inlcude homosexual unions--so the word simply DOESN'T MEAN "homosexual unions", period.

All right. On the "Amazing Race" (TV Show) two gay guys called themselves married. The show also captioned them as married. I would imagine other gay couple will describe themselves as married. Many of their friends probably describe them as married. By USE, you are singling out people that us the word in a fashion that you agree with. A minority feels otherwise. I believe that with new generations gay marriage will be a reality. Look at polls at what young people believe on it. People opposed to it are fighting a battle they cannot win over time.

This, of course, is what is wrong with the "who does it hurt?" or "why should you care?" argument. The recognition of marriage between man and woman as special suffers if other forms are equally recogognized as of the same value, just as giving everybody an "A" in school, or giving all people a driver's license would make a mockery of grading and of the rules of the road.

My marriage is not suffering by what gay people do. I feel no less of a bond knowing there are gay people out there in the world that are married.

Lurker

 

[Tmy]

How about this. Gay Marriage would cost too much. Think about how this new marriage would cause more court traffic (porbate, family) it'd effect taxes, medicare, health insurances, financial aid, medical rights and responsibilites, rights of survivorship, immgration on on and on.. Lawsuits being brought forth against compaines who were not recognizing the union like they do all marriges.

Its create an expensive domino effect through out government and business.

 

[toddjh]

I think you are misrepresenting 2). It is not that marriage is an inherent right and therefore gay people should be allowed to marry. It is more along the lines of,

1. Straight people currently have the legal right to marry.
2. The Consitution (or equivalent document) guarantees equal protection to all citizens under the law.
3. There are no relevant differences between gay couples and straight couples in the domain of marriage*; there is certainly no legitimate government interest in treating them differently.
4. Therefore, gay couples should be allowed to legally marry, to grant them their Constitutionally guaranteed right to equal protection of the law.

* This is the most often disputed point in this argument. However, for every argument you give that gay relationships are not "marriage-worthy" (e.g. they tend not to last very long, they can't produce children, etc.), I can point out thousands of heterosexual couples to which the argument also applies.

Jeremy

 

[Tmy]

1. Straight people currently have the legal right to marry.
2. The Consitution (or equivalent document) guarantees equal protection to all citizens under the law.

Equal protection gets tossed around alot. Even in the progressive tax arguments!

I dont have children. Is it a violation of equal protection law to give people wh kids a tax break? Im not being treated equally as as a parent.

 

[toddjh]

Equal protection gets tossed around alot. Even in the progressive tax arguments!

I dont have children. Is it a violation of equal protection law to give people wh kids a tax break? Im not being treated equally as as a parent.

Heh, you're asking the wrong guy. I say yes. People choose to have kids, they can deal with it themselves. Leave my money out of it!

Edited to add: The criterion here is the infamous "compelling government interest." You could argue, though I wouldn't necessarily agree, that the government has a compelling interest in making sure children are raised with a stable environment and proper education, and so giving their families extra money will encourage that. Like I said, I don't agree, but I can see where they're coming from.

What's the compelling government interest in treating homosexual relationships different, legally, than heterosexual relationships? That they can't have kids? Tons of heterosexual couples can't have kids, either.

Seriously, what is the compelling government interest in treating them so differently?

Jeremy

 

[Upchurch]

2). The "rights" argument: marriage is a right; gay people don't have this right (now); therefore, to end the discrimination against them, marriage should legally be recognized between them.

The only reason that I think is applicable is the second one, so I'll just defend that one. The other two I've either never heard of or never professed.

2). "Marriage is a right". Nonsense. It isn't any more of a right than a driver's license or being president. If it was a "right", then polygamy, incest, and so on would also be legal--you cannot deny people a "basic right" just because they're related, or include more than two people, can you? Rather, "marriage" is a LEGAL RECOGNITION OF THE SPECIALITY OF A RELATIONSHIP OF A CERTAIN TYPE BY SOCIETY, not a right.

I'm curious where you come up with this definition and distinction. What is it, legally, that makes a heterosexual relationship special or better than a homosexual relationship? Tradition, perhaps? If so, that is a poor reason, especially since history has shown us that tradition is not always right.

Regardless, I would suggest that marriage, either heterosexual or homosexual, to a loved one falls under category of the unalienable rights of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as suggested by the Declaration of Independance. What American principle or document can you point to that backs your definition above?

This, of course, is what is wrong with the "who does it hurt?" or "why should you care?" argument. The recognition of marriage between man and woman as special suffers if other forms are equally recogognized as of the same value, just as giving everybody an "A" in school, or giving all people a driver's license would make a mockery of grading and of the rules of the road.

Using racism as an analogy (not to be confused with the third argument you gave), The specialness of the white man suffers if other races (perhaps blacks) are equally recogognized as of the same value. Your school analogy fails because equality is given despite effort or achievment (i.e. on homework and tests). My analogy suggests equality despite factors which are beyond an individual's ability to control like race or sexual preference (or shoe size or hair color or infertility, etc.).

For your school analogy to hold, heterosexuals would have had to achieve something in order to be granted the previlage of marriage that homosexuals have not. Obviously there is no such achievement, unless you care to argue otherwise?

Again, if you want to argue that homosexual relations ARE equal, in an essential manner, to heterosexual ones from society's point of view and therefore SHOULD be given the same rights, that's your right; but it is simply false to assert that a relationship being recognized as a "marriage" is a "right", or that it doesn't matter what kind of relationship IS recognized as "marriage".

Then it is not a right either for heterosexuals. I summarize my counter argument as: What legal definition restricts marriage to heterosexuals and why should that definition, if it exists, be maintained?

 

[Tmy]

What interest do theyhave in createting gay marriage.? It would generate an expensive and confusing legal shockwave through our system.

If im a gay man I can still have a legal marriage. I just have to marry a women. Theres no law saying you have to marry the one you love!!!

 

[Valmorian]

First of all, to make something clear: I oppose gay marriages, yes; but here, I am not opposing the fact of gay marriages (whether it is good or bad) but the LOUSY ARGUMENTS used to support the claim that it is a good idea.

The only "lousy arguments" I see are your weak justifications for your own prejudice.

Here are the flaws:

1). The move from (b) to (c) is obviously illegitimate. Even if "marriage", as a word in English, DOES mean something that inlcudes gay unions, it doesn't follow that what is LEGALLY defined as "marriage" is the same as what is colloquially defined as marriage.

I don't know who would make the argument that because a word is used a particular way that it should be legally recognized that way.

However, intent IS a very important element to laws, and if the intent of homosexual marriage is a committed relationship with all the same intentions as a heterosexual one, I don't see why they need to be differentiated.

Does this mean that use--and therefore meaning--cannot change? Of course not. But it is the supporters' job to, first, show us that the USE of the word "marriage" did in fact change to include homosexual unions, not that it is "defined" that way, and--which is far more important--to show why the LEGAL MEANING of "marriage" should, in consequence, be changed.

How many people have to use the word marriage in that context before it becomes the new meaning? I can assure you that amongst my peers it is commonly used in such a way.

2). "Marriage is a right". Nonsense. It isn't any more of a right than a driver's license or being president. If it was a "right", then polygamy, incest, and so on would also be legal--you cannot deny people a "basic right" just because they're related, or include more than two people, can you? Rather, "marriage" is a LEGAL RECOGNITION OF THE SPECIALITY OF A RELATIONSHIP OF A CERTAIN TYPE BY SOCIETY, not a right.

It is a confirmation of a level of commitment in a relationship. Any heterosexual couple can live together as well. Why do you suppose THEY would want to get married?

I'm all for legalizing polygamy and incest amongst consenting individuals as well. Why not?

This, of course, is what is wrong with the "who does it hurt?" or "why should you care?" argument. The recognition of marriage between man and woman as special suffers if other forms are equally recogognized as of the same value, just as giving everybody an "A" in school, or giving all people a driver's license would make a mockery of grading and of the rules of the road.

What is so "Special" about the marriage between a man and a woman that would be "less" special between two men or two women? What is the significant difference that makes it less special for two men to commit to each other for the rest of their lives?

Again, if you want to argue that homosexual relations ARE equal, in an essential manner, to heterosexual ones from society's point of view and therefore SHOULD be given the same rights, that's your right; but it is simply false to assert that a relationship being recognized as a "marriage" is a "right", or that it doesn't matter what kind of relationship IS recognized as "marriage".

I for one don't consider marriage a right. I'd be happier if the Government didn't recognize marriage AT ALL.

3). "Mixed-race marriages were also once illegal, so one-sex marriages should be, too."--usually used with the not-so-hidden claim that those who opposed same-sex marriages as as bigoted as those who opposed mixed-rac emarriaged.

But this argument is simply a version of the "Galileo" argument ("They laughed at Galileo and he was right, they laugh at me, I am right".) The question is whether marriage should leglly be extended to same-sex marriages. The fact that it was wrongly denied to some groups in the past, doesn't mean that it should be given to ALL groups in the present.

HUH? What the hell does the Galileo argument have to do with this claim? Nobody is claiming they are right simply because they are being mocked or rebuked or denied.

There is a definite parallel between mixed race marriage and same sex marriage.

For example, "They" were opposed to incest as well as to mixed-race marriages; that doesn't mean that if they were wrong on opposing the latter they also were wrong in opposing the former.

Provided that the incestuous couple were both consenting adults, I see no problem with it.

Or, "they" were opposed to communism as well as to civil rights; the fact that "they" were wrong on opposing civil rights doesn't mean one should become a communist.

So let the argument stand on its own. How is same sex marriage so different than mixed race marriages? Both are/were reviled in their time and are denied.

If anything, it's the anti-gay marriage people who emphasize how similar these two things are, since they use the same kind of arguments that would be used to deny mixed race marriage.

In sum, I just don't see any good arguments for the gay marriage view. The issue is really a matter of FACT, not of definitions, history, or rights: are gay unions, or are they not, essentially equal to heterosexual ones in a manner that deserves legal recognition as marriage?

I see no reason why gay marriages whould not be recognized legally the same as any other kind of marriage. Tell me why they shouldn't be, because I'm SERIOUSLY having a hard time comprehending why you would deny them.

I think they aren't; and all the talk about the "rights" of gay people to marry (there isn't any) or the "definition" of marriage (which begs the question), or the accusations of "bigotry" (which is an ad hominem) is simply beside the point.

WHY don't you think they are? What makes them "lesser"?

 

[toddjh]

What interest do theyhave in createting gay marriage.? It would generate an expensive and confusing legal shockwave through our system.

*shrug* That's no different from heterosexual marriages. If you want to argue that the government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all, I can respect that. Hell, in a lot of ways I agree.

But if you're going to grant a legal right to one class of people while denying it to another, you have to show that there is a compelling government interest in treating those two groups differently.

So, again, what is it?

If im a gay man I can still have a legal marriage. I just have to marry a women. Theres no law saying you have to marry the one you love!!!

Sure. And once gay marriages are legal, a straight person is likewise free to marry someone of the same sex. What's your point?

Jeremy

 

[Ziggurat]

How about this. Gay Marriage would cost too much. Think about how this new marriage would cause more court traffic (porbate, family) it'd effect taxes, medicare, health insurances, financial aid, medical rights and responsibilites, rights of survivorship, immgration on on and on.. Lawsuits being brought forth against compaines who were not recognizing the union like they do all marriges.

Its create an expensive domino effect through out government and business.

This is a poor argument against gay marriages. Straight marriages cost money for the same reasons, and they'll probably always cost more money per marriage because child custody battles are always going to be more prevalent among us breeders. As a society, we have decided that the costs associated with straight marriages are worth the benefits, namely the idea that marriage helps hold the fabric of society together. The thing is, that argument works just the same for gays as well. Gay people are part of our society. And the gay community is healthier (both in a psychological sense and in a literal physical health sense) when most gays are in committed, long-term relationships. That's the kind of behavior we should encourage. We encourage it for straight people, so why NOT encourage it for gays? This is not, in my opinion, a constitutional issue - hell, I don't even think marriage is a constitutional right for straight people. It's a practical issue. Gay marriages just make sense.

 

[bignickel]

From "Tom the Dancing Bug":
http://www.ucomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2003/08/09/

George Bush:
The Bush administration will not allow those promoting a 'Gay Agenda' to subvert the institution of marriage -- to change it's traditional definition: An exchange of property arranged by the parents of strangers!

That's why we introduced the Defense of Traditional Marrage Act.

This is how marriage started centuries ago-- and this is how we're keepin' it!

§2.01. The Parents shall arrange for the Bride, no younger than 12 years of age, to become the possession of the Groom, with a Dowry of no less than three livestock animals.

§2.02. Marriage by abduction is legally proscribed, although if the Groom later pays a Bride-Price, it will be recognized.

§2.03. Among Nobility, Marriages may be arranged between Reigning Families for the purpose of reinforcing geo-political alliances.

 

[Tony]

The question isnt "Why gay marrage?", the question is, "Why not?".

 

[Some Friggin Guy]

I hear a lot of people talking about "if gays can marry it will lessen the value of marriage in general."

Frankly, I find it would cause no degredation in my marriage and anyone who feels their marriage would be lessened, probably doesn't take their marraige seriously enough in my opinion.

And, personally, I find the following quote more of a danger to the sanctity of marriage than anything the "gay agenda" could possibly do.

If im a gay man I can still have a legal marriage. I just have to marry a women. Theres no law saying you have to marry the one you love!!!

 

[Earthborn]

2). "Marriage is a right". Nonsense. It isn't any more of a right than a driver's license or being president.

Correct. Marriage is not a right: it gives rights. Rights that are very hard to attain for same-sex couples, even though they are just as important to them as to different-sex couples. I posted this on another thread, but it is just as relevant here:

What we should ask ourselves instead is this:

• If a child is living with a parent and a step-parent and the parent dies or is otherwise unable to care for it anymore, should the child be protected to be able to continue to be cared for by the step-parent, regardless of the step-parent's gender?
• If two people live in a very close relationship, and one of them must be taken to hospital, should the other be allowed to visit this person as if he/she is family, regardless of gender?
• If two people live in a very close relationship, and one of them must be taken to hospital and cannot communicate him/herself anymore, and an important health decision needs to be made, should the other, regardless of gender, be allowed to make that decision for him/her, and should the hospital treat this decision as if made by close family?
• If two people live in a very close relationship, and one of them dies, the other is left alone with many of the same costs they both shared together, should the other be entitled to part of the inheritence as if a family member, regardless of his/her gender?

If you say 'yes' to any of these questions, then you cannot logically be against same sex marriage, even if the idea itself makes you uncomfortable. If you are against same sex marriage, then you will have to say 'no' to these questions.

Those are the questions you should ask yourself, Skeptic. The definition of the word 'marriage' is irrelevant, just as whether marriage is a 'right' or not.

Also note that if you think about the issue in terms of these questions, you will see that allowing same-sex marriage does not necessarily open the door for incestuous marriages. Family members already have many have these rights without being recognized as married.

 

[Glory]

Let us, first of all, seperate the LEGAL from the VERBAL. What we're talking about here is the LEGAL RECOGNITION of gay unions by granting them the same legal rights as married couples. It doesn't matter what it's called: it can be called "marriage", "gayridge", "elrwerroidasoisadjwe", or "fnoord", for all anybody cares.

It's not about the word. Gotcha.

Now, the arguments I hear from the pro-gay-marriage side are threefold:

1). The following verbal-to-legal argument:

a). "Marriage" is DEFINED (or should be defined), in English, as "any close relationship" (or the equivalent).

b). Therefore, gay people in such a relationship should be called a "married couple".

c). Therefore, gay people in such a relationship should be LEGALLY recognized as married.

2). The "rights" argument: marriage is a right; gay people don't have this right (now); therefore, to end the discrimination against them, marriage should legally be recognized between them.

3). The "racism" argument: marriage used to be restricted to arranged marriages/ marriages between the same race/ etc.; people fought to extend the boundaries of marriage to mixed race marriages and they were right; therefore, those who fight to extend marriage to same-sex couples now are right.

Not one of these is my argument. These are poorly constructed strawmen. If you wish to refute my argument, I will make it myself in my words.

I think that (1), (2), and (3) are all seriously flawed. They all serve a neat rhetorical purpose: they tend to put the opponent on the defensive, apologizing for their "racism", trying to find some reason NOT to include gay marriages in a "definition" of marriage already selected by the opposition, etc. But this is because the flaws in these arguments are easy to overlook.

The purpose of the arguments are to support a position. Nothing more. If you end up realizing that your opposition to gay marraige is based more in bigotry and fear than in reason from listening to my arguments, that is not my problem.

Here are the flaws:

1). The move from (b) to (c) is obviously illegitimate. Even if "marriage", as a word in English, DOES mean something that inlcudes gay unions, it doesn't follow that what is LEGALLY defined as "marriage" is the same as what is colloquially defined as marriage.

Duh! Marraige has been legally defined by the federal government as a union between a man and a woman. The issue is the injustice and unconstitutionality of that definition.

But the move from (a) to (b) is also spurious. What a word means is decided by its USE, not by its "definition". The word marriage is used in a way that does not inlcude homosexual unions--so the word simply DOESN'T MEAN "homosexual unions", period.

To give a "definition" of "marriage" as "loving relationship" (or any other definition that is already rigged to include homosexual unions), and then using this "definition" to prove tha marriage includes homosexual unions is begging the question. It's simply saying "marriage includes homosexual unions, therefore, marriage includes homosexual unions".

It's not the word, it's the meaning of the word? You can keep going round and round like this but you aren't going anywhere. As far as the government is concerned marraige is defined by the rights it bestows on those who have entered into it. The government has no interest in what your relationship means to you or wether or not your church approves or if you consider Kool Whip a marrital aide. The government's interest is financial and regards your leagal rights as spouses to each other. Because there is no practical, observable or demonsterable difference between marraiges involving both genders and those involving only one gender, there is no reason what so ever to call a legal, gay union anything but marraige.

Does this mean that use--and therefore meaning--cannot change? Of course not. But it is the supporters' job to, first, show us that the USE of the word "marriage" did in fact change to include homosexual unions, not that it is "defined" that way, and--which is far more important--to show why the LEGAL MEANING of "marriage" should, in consequence, be changed.

Irrelevant and also wrong in that there is tons of evidence indicating that the word marraige in the vernacular does apply to gays and is frequently used to refer to gays. Furthermore, applying the word to gays does not change its definition any more than the definition of chair is changed if one uses one at a desk rather than at a table.(thanks for the analogy)

It is illegitimate to "define" the ENGLISH WORD "Marriage" in a rigged way to include homosexual marriages, and then claim this is a reason for the LEGAL TERM "marriage" to be extended to homosexual unions.

No one has done that.

2). "Marriage is a right". Nonsense. It isn't any more of a right than a driver's license or being president. If it was a "right", then polygamy, incest, and so on would also be legal--you cannot deny people a "basic right" just because they're related, or include more than two people, can you? Rather, "marriage" is a LEGAL RECOGNITION OF THE SPECIALITY OF A RELATIONSHIP OF A CERTAIN TYPE BY SOCIETY, not a right.

First and foremost, incest carries the risk of bad babies and that is plenty reason for it to be outlawed.

Second, I think the government has no business telling us whom we may marry, whom we may not marry, and under what circumstances. Laws against polygamy and polygeny are in violation of the establishment clause because religiously based morality is the basis of such laws. The feds need to but out of people's bedrooms.

Third, I have already told you that the feds have no compelling interest with the specialness of yours or anyone else's relationship. How is a heterosexual relationship special? Remember if you can't quantify if it, you can not enforce a law based on it.

This, of course, is what is wrong with the "who does it hurt?" or "why should you care?" argument. The recognition of marriage between man and woman as special suffers if other forms are equally recogognized as of the same value, just as giving everybody an "A" in school, or giving all people a driver's license would make a mockery of grading and of the rules of the road.

I have nothing to add to the rebuttals to this already posted by others.

Mixed-race marriages were also once illegal, so one-sex marriages should be, too."--usually used with the not-so-hidden claim that those who opposed same-sex marriages as as bigoted as those who opposed mixed-rac emarriaged.

But this argument is simply a version of the "Galileo" argument ("They laughed at Galileo and he was right, they laugh at me, I am right".) The question is whether marriage should leglly be extended to same-sex marriages. The fact that it was wrongly denied to some groups in the past, doesn't mean that it should be given to ALL groups in the present.

You still have not given a reason why anything should be denied homosexuals on the basis of their being homosexuals. Without a quantifiable difference between gay relationships and straight ones the only basis to deny them marraige is because they are what they are.

just don't see any good arguments for the gay marriage view. The issue is really a matter of FACT, not of definitions, history, or rights: are gay unions, or are they not, essentially equal to heterosexual ones in a manner that deserves legal recognition as marriage?

Yes.

I think they aren't; and all the talk about the "rights" of gay people to marry (there isn't any) or the "definition" of marriage (which begs the question), or the accusations of "bigotry" (which is an ad hominem) is simply beside the
point.

Why do you think that gay unions are not essentially equal to to heterosexual ones in a manner that deserves legal recognition as marriage? Instead of trying to tear down your strawmen make your own argument against gay marraige. We are all ears.(Eyes)

Glory

 

[corplinx]

privatize marriage, even the ifeminists.com chick likes the idea

 

[toddjh]

Re: Re: Gay Marriage (Again)

First and foremost, incest carries the risk of bad babies and that is plenty reason for it to be outlawed.

I agree with the majority of your post, but think carefully about this. First, the risks of birth defects as a result of incest has been found to be somewhat lower than previously thought. I've heard that at cousin-level or beyond, the risk is not significantly higher than with the general population.

Second, would you also argue that carriers of cystic fibrosis or other inherited diseases should likewise be forbidden to marry? Or take me. I don't want kids, period, and I've taken steps to make sure I never have any. Should reproductive issues have any bearing on whether the government recognizes who I want to spend my life with? I hope not, or else my marriage is a sham.

There are some good arguments against incest -- the potential for abuses of power relationships, for instance -- but "bad babies" isn't one of them.

Jeremy

 

[nightwind]

Gay marriage

Pretty much a non issue as far as I see it. Don't see the big deal.

I do hope that gay marriages are more successful than heterosexual ones, with the divorce rate hitting 50 percent plus in heterosexual marriages.

As far as I'm concerned, snore, snore, snore.......

 

[Glory]

Re: Re: Re: Gay Marriage (Again)

I agree with the majority of your post, but think carefully about this. First, the risks of birth defects as a result of incest has been found to be somewhat lower than previously thought. I've heard that at cousin-level or beyond, the risk is not significantly higher than with the general population.

Second, would you also argue that carriers of cystic fibrosis or other inherited diseases should likewise be forbidden to marry? Or take me. I don't want kids, period, and I've taken steps to make sure I never have any. Should reproductive issues have any bearing on whether the government recognizes who I want to spend my life with? I hope not, or else my marriage is a sham.

There are some good arguments against incest -- the potential for abuses of power relationships, for instance -- but "bad babies" isn't one of them.

Jeremy

I beg to differ. I used to live in Santa Rosa, Ca. which municipality had the dubious honour of being the only city to prosecute a couple for incest. They prosecuted the case because the woman was pregnant by her son for the third time. The first two children each had problems which occurred in a very low percentage of the population and which would have had a very low likely hood of occurence if the traits had only been passed on by one parent.

I have serious issues with people who knowingly take this kind of risk with their children.

I take your meaning with cystic fibrosis. I don't claim to know who should and who should not have children but I am comfortable with laws prohibiting incest. Somethings should not be knowingly inflicted on a child. I was appalled when I heard about a deaf couple who utilized genetic manipulation to ensure that their baby would be deaf. I must say that if I knew that there was a good chance that my children would have Cystic Fibrosis or ALD I would get my tubes tied.

Obviously children are not a requirement for a marraige but once we start having children, everything changes. We have responsibilities to our children which are unique. Often their rights trump their parents'.

I know I have strayed into a delicate area. It is easy for me to make a horrible mistake when I start to evaluate lives. That is not what I intend to do and I am confident that you can lob situations at me that I cannot easily deal with. I'll tell you right now that all the thinking I might do is going to make things murkier rather than clearer because I don't want to play God.

Suffice to say that I think the that the risk of bad babies is a reason to ban incest. The potential for tragedy is too high.

Glory