Gay marriage

[Mycroft]

For the most part, I've stayed out of the gay marriage debates. It’s one of those issues where those who have made up their minds will not budge, so debate seems pointless. But since that describes almost all issues, that excuse doesn’t really hold.

Gay marriage? I’m all for them. Completely.

I didn’t used to be. Oh, I always felt gays should have the same rights as heterosexuals, discrimination is wrong and all that, but I felt that marriage was just pushing it too far. If they want that, they can just live together. Nothing is stopping them, right? Other issues, rights of survivorship, rights to make medical decisions and so on could all be copied with a contract drawn up by a good lawyer, they just don’t need marriage.

That was before I got married, and learned first hand that marriage is indeed more than just two people living together. It’s easy to forget that in our modern society where so much emphasis is placed on the individual, and where anything that is seen as placing any limits on individual freedoms by tempering them with responsibilities is held with contempt. We didn’t used to be like that, we used to depend on relationships with family. My single friends (I still have some) express sympathy when I have to consider my family in making my decisions, they don’t get it when I explain this isn’t a sacrifice.

That was also before I met Jenny and Linda.

I should explain how I met them. Jenny and Linda are a part of my extended family, related to me through my daughter. My daughter came to be my daughter through adoption, and Jenny and Linda are the moms of one of my daughters’ biological sisters, Olivia. Olivia lucked out in getting the mothers she did; one is a child psychologist, the other a public school teacher.

They are married, in every sense of the word except the legal one. They have lived together for more than 20 years, own a house together, plan for their retirement together, take care of all the details of life together, and have created a family virtually identical to my own in every way.

For most people, marriage is the beginning of a new life, a milestone in a lifetime relationship. For this couple, it would just be a legal recognition of a relationship that already exists.

 

[subgenius]

A family full of love. Congrats.
The first couple to be married in the SF thing had only been together 50 years.

 

[Tmy]

SO your sayingthey arer doing just fine WITHOUT marriage!.



Marriage is a horrible contract. Its like becoming an indentured servent. WHo the hell wants to give up 1/2 (at least) of everything they own, make, and may make. Its insane. Your giving up freedom!

Take a trip down to divorce court and see the wonders of marriage. We should be out to stop marriage in all its forms, not expand it.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Tmy
SO your sayingthey arer doing just fine WITHOUT marriage!.

They would do better with the legal recognition. They're both professional women, so both have access to health care benefits, but other couples have the option of sharing a plan. This becomes even more important when a child is involved.

Originally posted by Tmy
Marriage is a horrible contract. Its like becoming an indentured servent. WHo the hell wants to give up 1/2 (at least) of everything they own, make, and may make. Its insane. Your giving up freedom!

If you only see the obligations created by a partnership, then it's not for you.

 

[Tmy]

If you only see the obligations created by a partnership, then it's not for you.

Im fine wh partnership. You gave a great example of partners who care for each other. Marriage is a whole difft animal. What does it create other than obligations. Im thinking civil union is the way to go. Visit me in the hospital if you like, but dont even think your getting alimony if we break up!!!

 

[Upchurch]

If you only see the obligations created by a partnership, then it's not for you.

Agreed. I've been married just over four months and it is sooooo much better than simply being just in a very committed relationship.

 

[Mycroft]

Im fine wh partnership. You gave a great example of partners who care for each other. Marriage is a whole difft animal. What does it create other than obligations. Im thinking civil union is the way to go. Visit me in the hospital if you like, but dont even think your getting alimony if we break up!!!

What about your pension if you die?

 

[subgenius]

Agreed. I've been married just over four months and it is sooooo much better than simply being just in a very committed relationship.

Give it time
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde:
"Bigamy is having one spouse too many. Monogamy is the same."

 

[Tmy]

What about your pension if you die?

We can take care of that crap wh civil unions.

Up,
Why are things better after marriage? What changed??


I would think that if someone really didnt like gays, theyd be wishing marriage on them.

 

[Ashi]

I have been trying to stay out of the "gay marriage" discussions myself because I still have not decided exactly where I stand on the issue. I do not post often as I have little time for the usual name-calling and trolling that seems to take place in the “regular” forums, but I have great hopes for a legitimate discussion about this issue in this forum. Please fellow skeptics, be gentle. I am truly trying to make up my mind.

I have no religious or any other "moral" problem with homosexual people getting married. There may be an unconscious issue with the "ick factor" when pertaining to male homosexuals, however I do not think this would prevent me from looking at the issue from a logical position.

My problem is that I cannot seem to get past the so-called "slippery slope" problems that gay marriage may present.

I am familiar with and understand the illogic of the slippery slope fallacy but I cannot help but to reasonably infer the following progression that may start with gay marriage.

If a homosexual person can choose to marry someone of the same sex and this is a personal right or freedom that should be available to them because of their natural sexuality, then a bisexual person should be able to choose to marry two people of different sexes as this is a personal right or freedom that should be available to them because of their natural sexuality.

Is there any more relevance to an arbitrary line drawn between the genders that are allowed to be "married" and the number of participants that should be allowed to be "married"? If not, then it seems to me that the "polygamy" argument would come into play at this point and on down the slippery slope it goes.

Now I would just like to add that I do not have a personal objection to polygamy either (at least not at present). I have read a few articles where pro-gay marriage advocates seem to distance themselves from arguments for the acceptance of polygamy. I can only guess it is because polygamy is illegal and a pro-gay/pro-polygamy argument may seem weaker.

Please help explain how this "slippery slope" argument is completely out of the question.

 

[Valmorian]

Please help explain how this "slippery slope" argument is completely out of the question.

I don't see any reason to refuse it to any relationship where all parties are consenting adults.

 

[toddjh]

My problem is that I cannot seem to get past the so-called "slippery slope" problems that gay marriage may present.

I submit that it is marriage itself, not gay marriage in particular, that started us down that slippery slope. Gay marriage is merely the next pebble in the avalanche created by entangling government in personal relationships to begin with.

You seem to admit that the current dividing line about what constitutes marriage is completely arbitrary. Well, why couldn't it continue to be completely arbitrary, just moved a little bit in order to include gay marriages as well?

On the other hand, what makes the slippery slope that bad? Why do you care about who else might be allowed to marry in the future? What difference does it make to you? That's the biggest thing I have a problem with from people who raise this type of argument.

If a homosexual person can choose to marry someone of the same sex and this is a personal right or freedom that should be available to them because of their natural sexuality, then a bisexual person should be able to choose to marry two people of different sexes as this is a personal right or freedom that should be available to them because of their natural sexuality.

Is there any more relevance to an arbitrary line drawn between the genders that are allowed to be "married" and the number of participants that should be allowed to be "married"? If not, then it seems to me that the "polygamy" argument would come into play at this point and on down the slippery slope it goes.

There is a good reason not to allow marriages to multiple people, including your example as well as full-fledged polygamy/polyamory/whatever you want to call it. Even allowing one spouse of each gender can lead to networks of married people of arbitrary size. That's a legal and logistical nightmare, and government certainly has an interest in maintaining order in its judgements and records. I don't think this falls under the slippery slope argument.

Jeremy

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by Ashi
I have no religious or any other "moral" problem with homosexual people getting married. There may be an unconscious issue with the "ick factor" when pertaining to male homosexuals, however I do not think this would prevent me from looking at the issue from a logical position.

My problem is that I cannot seem to get past the so-called "slippery slope" problems that gay marriage may present.

Society changes. We do things today that would have been unthinkable 50 years ago, and 50 years from now our children will do things that are unthinkable to us. Chances are, we don't know what these things are yet. Changes in society are not always to the more liberal, they are just as likely to be to the more conservative.

 

[phildonnia]

The gay marriage advocates totally missed the boat, PR-wise.

The problem is: the law discriminates against the unmarried and the childless.

If that had been the argument, they would have had a lot more support from people who don't care about the current debate, and they would have taken most of the fuel away from the "sanctity of marriage" argument.

 

[Troll]

I don't care if you wanna marry the dog you dated in the bestiality porn video I may or may not have downloaded on purpose or by accident from some dutch (what is with those people) website.

get a law made to support it acrossed the nation. It can be done. Get it passed and protect the rights of your gay marriage as an equal thing compared to a hetero marriage. But this alleged civil disobedience and marriages done as a form of protest, serves no one. It is a sham and still has to end up in the court system. Take it directly to the courts.

 

[Cleopatra]

Interesting opening post.

I am against gay marriage because I am against marriage generally speaking. Marriage causes descriminations within the society between married and singles. I am against any kind of descrimination. I think that the legal implications are too nasty for an average person to handle if something goes wrong not to mention that you come face to face with the ugliest side of human nature.

Since I have been there and I know how to take advantage of the descriminating laws I am almost certain that I won't get legally married again.

 

[Ashi]

toddjh-

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by toddjh
You seem to admit that the current dividing line about what constitutes marriage is completely arbitrary. Well, why couldn't it continue to be completely arbitrary, just moved a little bit in order to include gay marriages as well?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do admit that the current dividing line about what constitutes marriage is completely arbitrary. I just think that moving that arbitrary line one way or another may have unforeseen consequences that I have not fully thought through. You admit that there are downsides to the "polygamy/polyamory/whatever you want to call it" forms of marriage that could be a logistical nightmare for the government. Why would this arbitrary line be moved and left in place where some are still discriminated against? Maybe the entire situation needs to be changed and the arbitrary line eliminated.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by toddjh
On the other hand, what makes the slippery slope that bad? Why do you care about who else might be allowed to marry in the future? What difference does it make to you? That's the biggest thing I have a problem with from people who raise this type of argument.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I never said that the slippery slope was bad. I care because these decisions may affect me in the future, maybe not directly but who knows? I am not raising an argument to defend one side or the other in this debate. I am merely attempting to flesh out what my position is so that I can intelligently talk about the subject if I desire to.


phildonnia-
I agree that the laws discriminate against the unmarried and the childless. I lived with my wife for 13 years before we were married because I did not agree with the government that I should have to get a licensee for my personal affairs. I paid the price too, mostly monetary (taxes, insurance, etc.) but I gave in and got married so that I could buy a house and have children without all of the problems that being unmarried could cause.


I generally feel that any type of purposeful discrimination is wrong. That is why I cannot understand the moral dilemma that I find arises from the slippery slope argument.

I am beginning to think that the whole concept of marriage should be scrapped and we should start over.

 

[Mycroft]

Cleopatra,

I certainly understand your feelings on marriage and I know many who share them. Given these feelings, I'm very happy for you that you have the opportunity to choose not to participate again in this custom.

However, legal discriminations between married people and singles are a separate issue. The custom of marriage has been around for thousands of years, and the specific details of the rights, benefits and obligations that come with it are subject to change with time and locality.

If we assume that the social and legal details of this custom could be adjusted to suit your preferences, would you still object to same-gender couples having the same opportunity to participate?

 

[subgenius]

Lynne Cheney's Lesbian Novel
You all knew this already, its old news.
http://whitehouse.org/administration/sisters.asp
What is interesting is that she has denied remembering what the plot of her own book was about.
Dick, in 2000, advocated letting the states decide homosexual rights, and now favors the amendment banning gay marriage.
By the way, the book is hot.
(Yes I know their daughter is gay)
You know, just more sub spam.

 

[American]

Society changes. We do things today that would have been unthinkable 50 years ago, and 50 years from now our children will do things that are unthinkable to us. Chances are, we don't know what these things are yet. Changes in society are not always to the more liberal, they are just as likely to be to the more conservative.

No right or wrong, just different. Got it.

The custom of marriage has been around for thousands of years, and the specific details of the rights, benefits and obligations that come with it are subject to change with time and locality.

But never biology. Ever. Except the liberal goal is to promote androgeny and squash concepts of natural sex and gender.


Now call me a bigot and dismiss me along with the great majority of people who believe in preserving normalcy of marriage and family.