Gay Marriage

Gwyn ap Nudd said:
The second flawed assumption is that the law can't be arbitrary. The law is always arbitrary. What it can't be is fundamentally unfair. There is no law against constituting a family however you want. But if you want the marital relationship(s) at the basis of the family to entitle you to government benefits, you need to register the relationship(s). An arbitrary definition of marriage which restricts a group from registering and recieving those benefits is fundamentally unfair. An arbitrary definition of marriage that restricts "double-dipping" is still arbitrary. It may even be situationally unfair. But it is not fundamentally unfair.

There is no logical reason to restrict marriage to monogamous relationships. Nor is there any logical reason not to open it up to polygamous relationships. It is an arbitrary benchmark. But it is only fundamentally unfair if there is no provision for adjusting the relationship(s). Allowing for divorce and re-marriage provides those adjustments. Yes, allowing same-sex marriage makes arguments for polygamous marriages stronger. Perhaps society will even approve the change. But there is no reason to assume that accepting same-sex marriage necessitates accepting polygamous marriage.
Click to expand...
So, I'm still coming at it from the "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" point of view? I guess. I still think of Marriage... You know, capital m and all. It's conditioned in to see it differently because marriage... Wait... Yeah, conditioned. Okay, I see my problem...
 
bluess said:
It was my understanding from some reading that they can present either as males or females, depending on how much different bits develop. So, if you never knew my genetic code, and I looked like a girl, and a small vagina and a rather large clitoris, was a bit flat chested and has great skin and hair, and dressed like a girl, why should I be a guy? Or, what if I looked like a guy, with small testes and a small penis, very little facial hair, and dressed like a guy, why should I be a girl?
Click to expand...

Both wikipedia and my memory of high school biology tells me that your understanding is wrong. Having just one Y chromosome triggers the development of male physiology. XXYs frequently have small breasts, but they're not hermaphrodites let alone women unless they have an addtional disorder.
 
mylfmyhnr said:
This is where I trip. Whiny ranting aside, I am torn. I took the view that I grew up with as a test for me, to see if it still fit. I'm still uncomfortable with it all, but I can't see that I still get to be. I'm at a loss with this issue... It got brought up and I ran with it to see what I really think... And though I see the points and validity I'm still struggling.
Click to expand...

That's because deep down you know you're wrong.

I went through something very similar with my religious beliefs. But I was honest with myself and admitted I had no good reason to believe what I believed. So I let it go.
 
mylfmyhnr said:
I concede this point. My idea was that most American see Gays as a minority trying to get thier way... The next minority is the Pligs, the next are the Pligs who want to marry the 14 year old down the street. Perhpas my problem is, in fact, that this is how the Pligs work and that, granted one portion of legality, they would push for more.
Click to expand...

This is not about a minority "getting thier (sp) way". This is about a group just asking to be treated the same as everyone else. They are NOT asking for special treatment, they are asking for equal treatment.

How someone can construe that to be wrong escapes me and yet, it doesn't surprise me.
 
Last edited:
Marquis de Carabas said:
So you've changed your mind?
Click to expand...
Well, yeah, I guess so. As I said, I've struggled with it and I figured taking the arguments that I run around in my mind for the "no" vote and seeing what it actually all means was my best course. I did it here because no one in my real life challenges this idea. "Of course it's wrong" they say... And I knew why. Right? Didn't I? But when it came down to it I couldn't decide... Here though... Here I couldn't defend it, I couldn't defend the ideas... And the reality was the bit about marriage just being the legal way of telling the government..
 
mylfmyhnr said:
Yes, I do understand that. But I believe that more care needs to be taken when deciding to change the entire way a society views marriage than because one group wants it changed. There are ramifications beyond just the Gay community and that has to be understood as well.
Click to expand...
Uh, actually the law changes only when a majority of the society decides it is time to change (except on a temporary basis which is the likely situation with many of shrubs' ill-done laws that give him freeish reign to act his most fecal).When a majority is comfortable with leaving others the hell alone it will happen.
 
Oh, it looks like the same old crap, I'm dissapointed, I guess, but not surprised.
 
fuelair said:
Uh, actually the law changes only when a majority of the society decides it is time to change (except on a temporary basis which is the likely situation with many of shrubs' ill-done laws that give him freeish reign to act his most fecal).When a majority is comfortable with leaving others the hell alone it will happen.
Click to expand...
True, and another point I missed. It's the whole "I don't want to change but they are going to make me" thing.
Perhaps it was my own attempt at controlling my suroundings. Like there was going to be some big Gay coup and they were going to force their views on me.
 
mylfmyhnr said:
True, and another point I missed. It's the whole "I don't want to change but they are going to make me" thing.
Perhaps it was my own attempt at controlling my suroundings. Like there was going to be some big Gay coup and they were going to force their views on me.
Click to expand...
Oh, there is a gay coup coming. Operation Fabulous Tuesday. But I've said too much.
 
mylfmyhnr said:
True, and another point I missed. It's the whole "I don't want to change but they are going to make me" thing.
Perhaps it was my own attempt at controlling my suroundings. Like there was going to be some big Gay coup and they were going to force their views on me.
Click to expand...

I wish I was a psychologist now ...
 
wahrheit said:
I wish I was a psychologist now ...
Click to expand...
I could use one:D I'm on a mission to dicover what I really believe, not just what others have told me that I believe. I'd call this place a God-send but then I'd have to hit myself with a ruler, so I'll just say it's been invaluable. I appreciate everyone who has taken the time this afternoon (my time) to help me through this. Though not all got anything out of it, I did, and it's mattered in my life.
 
Last edited:
Sometimes posters bring up the phrase "the spirit of JREF," or "the spirit of this forum." In my opinion, Mylfmyhnr and this thread just epitomized for me what that is.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
 
mylfmyhnr said:
I could use one:D I'm on a mission to dicover what I really believe, not just what others have told me that I believe. I'd call this place a God-send but then I'd have to hit myself with a ruler, so I'll just say it's been invaluable. I appreciate everyone who has taken the time this afternoon (my time) to help me through this. Though not all got anything out of it, I did, and it's mattered in my life.
Click to expand...

I commend you on even attempting this mission, it is often too easy to close one's mind and just accept what you've been told. A questioning mind is a great thing especially if you are prepared to really listen to the answers.
 
Slippery slope arguments are practically worthless. Just because something bad could happen, doesn't mean that it's likely.

I'll bet there was a lot of this type of ranting back when laws where changed to legally recognize mixed-race marriages in the US. "If you change marriage to allow blacks and whites to marry, then you can change other things about marriage, too! The ideal of proper marriage will be doomed!" Oh, noes.

I think that the only real opposition to same-sex marriages has religion or religious morality at its core. Otherwise, why on earth would it really matter to John Q. Public if his gay neighbors got married and enjoyed a stable monogamous relationship? Yes, the gay couple would benefit financially, but they would have those same benefits if they married the opposite sex, and then nobody would even care about it. It's not about the money, taxation, healthcare, or other benefits, it's about self-righteous out-dated religious morality. You wouldn't care if a gay man married a straight woman or a lesbian married a straight man. See, you're not wanting to prevent gays from marrying at all, just not to each other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom