So just because there are much less gay couples, nothing should matter? And gay people don't have the same rights as straight people. Imagine not being able to marry someone of the opposite sex. You couldn't marry someone that you're attracted to. That's the problem for gays, except the opposite. Put yourself in someone else's shoes.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Gay marriage
- Thread starter BFDD
- Start date
- Status
pockyD
Smash Legend
Nobody is forcing gay people into traditional marriages, just as no one is forcing people like snex (who apparently doesn't believe in marriage) into marriage. Why shouldn't people who simply don't want to get married receive the tax breaks and other benefits that married couples (straight or, apparently, gay) receive? What do you think the foundation of the marital concept is in America?
I'm moderately certain I've stated this at least twice now, but I have no problem with gays having "replacement rights". I am merely suggesting that allowing gay marriage is, in fact, creating a set of "replacement rights", rather than allowing an extension of existing ones, and should be considered as such.
Not a lot, primarily because gay people are not allowed to get married in 48 states.
I'm not sure what your point is here. That gay people are the minority? Well, yeah, I know that.
This is extremely faulty logic. If you apply this logic to the question of other marriages, such as interracial ones, you reach horrible conclusions.
Black people have the same rights as white people. They are allowed to marry people of their own skin color. So you see, they're really equal. Just because they love someone who's not of their race and therefore don't want to exercise those rights doesn't mean they should necessarily have replacement rights.
By the way, the second half of that last sentence was lifted directly from your post.
It depends on the marriage, doesn't it? Married people don't always love each other, but people who do love each other should be allowed to get married.
Next time somebody is mauled, killed or eaten by a gay marriage, you let me know.
Until then, this is the stupidest metaphor I've heard in a long time.
I agree with you that denying minorities rights is preferable to actively persecuting them, but that doesn't make it a good thing. That makes it the lesser of two evils.
So I'm not sure what your point is here.
What, exactly, is the legal, moral or ethical difference?
Again, I fail to understand the point you are trying to make.
The reason those 10 couples would be straight is because gay people can't get married. Thats kinda the reason we are debating this.
It isn't giving them replacement rights it is equal rights, they through no choice of their own have no attraction to those of the opposite gender. Straight people have the right to marry who they are attracted to, homosexuals should have the same right. You were not born with an innate desire to own a polar bear. You seem to think we shouldn't allow gay marriage because the current law doesn't agree with it. But that is the whole reason we are debating, because the current law is wrong. If people didn't argue against laws there would still be slavery.
The current laws on marriage are not valid evidence against gay marriage.
It isn't giving them replacement rights it is equal rights, they through no choice of their own have no attraction to those of the opposite gender. Straight people have the right to marry who they are attracted to, homosexuals should have the same right. You were not born with an innate desire to own a polar bear. You seem to think we shouldn't allow gay marriage because the current law doesn't agree with it. But that is the whole reason we are debating, because the current law is wrong. If people didn't argue against laws there would still be slavery.
The current laws on marriage are not valid evidence against gay marriage.
snex
Smash Master
even if it is giving "replacement rights," you have those rights too! if gay marriage became legal, you as a straight person would have the right to marry somebody of the same sex, which still keeps things equal.
pockyD
Smash Legend
Point is that the term 'marriage' has the connotation of being opposite-sex. I thought that train of thought was pretty clear - where did I lose you?
Good point (seriously). However, are you suggesting that no lines should be drawn at all?
My point is that marriage as a legal institution has little to do with love, and shouldn't necessarily be treated as such.
Perhaps, but sometimes you need ridiculous analogies to get people to understand them. How about if I strongly dislike cigarettes; can I smoke crack if I don't leave my house?
Why should marriage provide legal benefits at all?
The difference is that you appease the religious crowd that opposes gay marriage because it taints the traditional views of marriage. TBH, I don't actually totally know what gay people are looking for here; I was always under the impression that they simply wanted the legal benefits of marriage
It wasn't clear at all, but now I do understand what you're saying.
And I have a question for you. What, exactly, is wrong with giving marriage a broader definition?
Then there's also the fact that gay marriages were allowed in ancient Rome for a long period, so it's not really accurate to say that marriage has always been between a man and a woman. The most you can say is that marriage has mostly been between a man and a woman.
I'm suggesting that any lines that are drawn should make both legal and practical sense, rather than being kept in place because of prejudices and an unwillingness to change.
Fine. How does this apply to the debate at hand?
Your analogy was not just ridiculous. It was ridiculously bad. My point was that, unlike polar bears, there is no danger inherent in gay marriage. Your analogy seemed to suggest that gay marriages were inherently dangerous.
Also, you seemed to be insinuating that the idea of gay marriage was ludicrous, because the idea of keeping a polar bear as a pet would be seen as ludicrous. This is a point you have failed to make directly, and your analogy also failed to convince me.
I don't think it should, but again, that's a separate issue. It's not relevant to this debate.
Appeasing an oppressive majority is not my goal, nor is it the goal of the gays fighting for their right to marry. It may be important to you, but I prioritize individual rights over hurt feelings.
That may be true for some gay people, but certainly not all.
The problem is that "civil unions" are not true equality. You're right in saying that the word marriage has a special meaning, and gay people are just as aware of that meaning as anyone else. Denying them access to that particular label means that they are not truly equal with heterosexual couples under the law.
Civil unions would fall under the category of separate but equal. Which is completely legal right? There wasn't a major supreme court decision that determined that it is still discrimination.
(Hint See brown vs. board of education)
Unless you think that ruling should be overturned?
And I agree that lines should be drawn, marriage is between two consenting adults sounds like a good place to draw the line.
(Hint See brown vs. board of education)
Unless you think that ruling should be overturned?
And I agree that lines should be drawn, marriage is between two consenting adults sounds like a good place to draw the line.
HyugaRicdeau
Baller/Shot-caller
"Marriage" should be absolutely abolished from any LEGAL context, and should only be something done within a church. "Civil union" should replace what -legal- marriage is now, and be between any pair of consenting adults. That is to say, "marriage" is just a terrible misnomer for the legal institution that exists now. If your church doesn't like people of the same sex getting MARRIED, then that never has to happen, because it doesn't exist as a legal concept, only as a ceremonial one in your church.
You know, I really bought into this idea for a while, but marriage doesn't belong to the church. Marriage didn't start as a religious institution, and there's no reason that any religious institution should be able to own it.
I'm not saying churches shouldn't be allowed to hold marriage ceremonies. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to expect the government to relinquish the word just because certain Christians feel that they are misusing it.
It wasn't a religious idea to begin with, so there's no reason why any religious group should have any say over who the government allows to marry.
HyugaRicdeau
Baller/Shot-caller
Well it's just a word; if Christianity (or whatever) co-opting "marriage" bothers you, we can just as well rename what I've called civil unions as "civil marriage" or whatever, and make it clear that it is a distinct institution from the religious one and that one has no bearing on the other.
pockyD
Smash Legend
As an Asian person, should I go around telling people I'm black? Should I check the "Native American" checkbox on my tax returns?
If you disagree with me on what the label "marriage" does and should mean, then that's fine; no amount of debating will change anyone's perspective on this (nor is anyone 'wrong'; your definitions are derived from the sum of your experiences). But assuming for the sake of argument you concede that marriage in the current vernacular refers to a man + a woman, then the fact that two men or two women can't apply the label to themselves only makes perfect sense to me.
The difference is that, in this case, people can enter either union. For example, as a straight person, I could choose to marry another dude if I wanted to for some reason (just as currently gay people can marry opposite-sex people). The reason I make this claim is that it's impossible to expect "love" (or whatever pro-gay marriage people use as the basis for the "marriage" relationship) in law, and it should not be expected to do so.
To me, this is like saying that, while white and black schools exist, a white or black student is free to choose to attend either one.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
Marriage is honestly the dumbest concept ever. You are exactly the same the day before you got married as you are the next day, physically, just one of you may or may not have had a name change.
I see absolutely no reason to deny gay people the right to marry, especially based on pockyD's stupid example that it's not the popular connotation.
Fact is they are people, people should are allowed to marry each other if they are legal, consenting adults.
I see absolutely no reason to deny gay people the right to marry, especially based on pockyD's stupid example that it's not the popular connotation.
Fact is they are people, people should are allowed to marry each other if they are legal, consenting adults.
adumbrodeus
Smash Legend
You should've checked my post, I already responded to this issue.
It's not REALLY a gay vs. straight issue as far as equality, it's a male vs. female issue.
As far as marriage goes, men have a different set of rights then women, and women have a different set of rights then men.
Legally, separate but equal, does this sound at all familiar?
YES Brown V. Board of Ed., which contrary to popular belief, did not just address segregation, but in fact established an general precedent for dealing with all issues of "separate but equal". The standard was demonstratable harm. The harm here is rather simple to demonstrate. Tyrrany of the majority, violation of establishment and free exercise clauses by accepting a religious definition as grounds for governmental privileges, not to mention the simple practical effects that the couples are denied the actual benefits of marriage.
No, separate marriage rights for men and women is a clear violation of the Brown V. Board of Ed. holding, and therefore a clear violation of the constitution namely, the equal protections clause.
I disagree that marriage is a dumb concept. Semantically speaking, it's very different from "dating", and that difference is important, especially when it comes to building a family.
Also, it makes it more difficult to break family commitments, which are really the building blocks of society. Yes, the divorce rate is over 50%, so one might wonder if marriage is really that hard to get out of, but a divorce is significantly more difficult than just breaking up.
As to the gay marriage debate, I don't think the government has the right to enforce such a blatantly discriminatory practice as preventing two consenting homosexual adults from marrying. Anti-miscegenation laws used to be quite prevalent in the US, and I think we can all agree that those were wrong.
Or we could just call it 'marriage' and the people who have a big issue with a word could just get used to the idea of having to share a word.
You say yourself it's just a word, so why bother coming up with replacements?
Zero Beat
Cognitive Scientist
^^Exactly.
Again, why are we trying to segregate homosexuals even more? The concept of "gay rights" is bad enough as it is. Whatever happened to human rights??
Besides, not all homosexuals are atheists.
But yes, I understand that we've been conditioned to generally accept marriage as the ultimate form of commitment; well times are changing.
Again, why are we trying to segregate homosexuals even more? The concept of "gay rights" is bad enough as it is. Whatever happened to human rights??
Besides, not all homosexuals are atheists.
I wouldn't call it a dumb concept either, but I do agree with Crimson King in that marriage is just a title. As long as there is love for one another, marriage might as well not exist.
But yes, I understand that we've been conditioned to generally accept marriage as the ultimate form of commitment; well times are changing.
Marriage is more than just a title it also comes with legal benefits, the two people involved become legally considered family, it means things like insurance can be shared among the two. It is also easier to adopt, if you adopt and aren't married, the child is only under one name, if that person dies things become very complicated, adoption agencies know this and prefer to avoid the situation.
Is dating that drastically different from marriage when you live together? At that point in dating, I believe you start sharing commitments and operate almost the same as you would in a marriage. Altho you are not supported by the government and are not recognized as a legal couple, it would seem you almost are. Breaking up at the point is even more difficult than it is while just dating. So wouldn't moving in together be basically marriage without the title?
pockyD
Smash Legend
Some people want the title, as "marriage" carries an idea of permanence behind it (even though modern divorce rates suggest it isn't so). Think about how you view break-ups as opposed to how you view divorces; break-ups are no big deal and happen all the time, but see someone with multiple divorces and it's almost natural to question their personality and decisions
PiSToLZ
Smash Lord
sry typo
i dont find it wrong
Eternal phoenix Fire
Smash Hero
Not only do I believe that Gay marriage should be legal, i also find it absolutely ridiculous that the United States would debate against it.
Unfortunately, the United States is somewhat of a hypocritical conglomerate, and I think this is possibly the basis of the arguments against legalizing gay marriage. Since the United states mainstream society is primarily Christian, it's possible that people are veiwing this as going against the bible ( Which states that Marriage is a holy sacrament between a man and a woman).
This is basically the same as segregation; negating another groups legal rights. I'm not extremely informed on the matter, but stripping an individual of his/her rights even though they have done nothing wrong is just as bad has being ruled by a totalitarian dictatorship.
I believe that any man/woman or interracial couple have all rights to marry one another. If anything, it's their natural rights as citizens to be able to.
@adumbrodeus: I completely agree with your statement.
Unfortunately, the United States is somewhat of a hypocritical conglomerate, and I think this is possibly the basis of the arguments against legalizing gay marriage. Since the United states mainstream society is primarily Christian, it's possible that people are veiwing this as going against the bible ( Which states that Marriage is a holy sacrament between a man and a woman).
This is basically the same as segregation; negating another groups legal rights. I'm not extremely informed on the matter, but stripping an individual of his/her rights even though they have done nothing wrong is just as bad has being ruled by a totalitarian dictatorship.
I believe that any man/woman or interracial couple have all rights to marry one another. If anything, it's their natural rights as citizens to be able to.
@adumbrodeus: I completely agree with your statement.
Mr.Lombardi34
Smash Ace
In conclusion:
Stripping a minority of their rights because of something they have no control over is wrong and un-constitutional. It's just that simple. Banning gay marriage is similar to slavery. Gays can't control their sexuality, slaves couldn't control their race. Gays don't get certain basic rights, slaves didn't either. The only argument that stands against allowing gay marriage in the United States is religious. In the United States, we have separation between church and state, so religious arguments don't count. It makes absolutely no sense to deny gays the right to marry anymore.
Stripping a minority of their rights because of something they have no control over is wrong and un-constitutional. It's just that simple. Banning gay marriage is similar to slavery. Gays can't control their sexuality, slaves couldn't control their race. Gays don't get certain basic rights, slaves didn't either. The only argument that stands against allowing gay marriage in the United States is religious. In the United States, we have separation between church and state, so religious arguments don't count. It makes absolutely no sense to deny gays the right to marry anymore.
snex
Smash Master
thats a rather poor argument.. pedophiles have no control over their desires but we all agree that they dont have the right to have sex with children.
Thanks for comparing homosexuality to pedophelia. Simply put, pedophelia doesn't include two consenting adults over the age of eighteen... and the list can go on. I think that there's a huge difference between the arguments of gay marriage, and child/adolescent marriage. If you want to start a new thread on it, I'm sure I can help you find some more reasons.
SkylerOcon
Tiny Dancer
That's also a poor argument. There's a difference between two people over 18 and a pedophile with a little kid.
Another thing that's come up in this debate is the idea that marriage is stupid. Well, it would be if it didn't guarantee so many legal rights that aren't otherwise available. A few of these are:
- Hospital Visitation Rights. Married couple have the right to visit their partners in hospitals and make medical decisions. Gay couples can be denied that right.
- Shared Health Insurance. If your partner dies and has health insurance, you won't get that if you're gay. You have to get a whole new insurance plan.
- Spousal Privilege. Gay couples do not have the right to refuse to testify against each other in court.
These are just a few. More can be found here: http://www.republicoft.com/2006/08/06/what-rights-should-same-sex-couples-have/
pockyD
Smash Legend
I'd be interested in hearing the rest of the list.
Pedophilia is a little bit of an extreme, but I think it illustrates the example pretty well... the argument that is for gay marriage but against pedophilia is just an arbitrary line
Who cares if people are over 18? If a 15 year old and 30 year old are in "love", can you truly, with your mindset, deny them their "love"? If so, based on what premise?
Whoever said marriage shouldn't be a secular institution at all, I would agree with that, and the 'men's rights' vs 'women's rights' (as opposed to gay marriage vs straight marriage) was a perspective I had never thought of before too
But this whole "who are we to tell blah blah blah what they can blah blah blah" just doesn't cut it
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
Here's where you're wrong. Pedophilia has little to do with a sexual attraction towards children, and everything to do with a desire to be in control; same statement goes for rapists. Also, you aren't denying them love. A child of 15 may be mature enough to make the decisions of marriage mentally, but they are still growing emotionally. Emotionally, an adult who showers love on a child, with sick ideas in mind, will complete that child in ways impossible. This is why pedophiles are so insidious. They attack a child where they are weakest. Even when a male is ***** by an older female, despite societies stigma that that is a great experience and a rite of passage, it falls under the same idea that he wants physical intimacy and is granted it by a person of authority.
pockyD
Smash Legend
ok I did a poor job of explaining... I'm not referring to "actual" pedophiles, who are more concerned with the quest for domination (an the targets of the age laws) - I'm referring to the "innocent" victims that said laws just happen to sideswipe (i.e. a 20 year old and 17 year old legitimately in love)
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2002
- Messages
- 28,982
Having been in that situation, there is no law for them. At the same time, I knew a girl who was thirteen, consented to a guy who was nineteen, then he got busted for Statutory ****. She was VERY willing, but he gets busted for such a thing because of the age difference. It's an awkward position to put yourself in, but it's still a serious of choices.
I find it funny that people arguing against gay marriage so often end up comparing it to pedophilia or bestiality. I guess they're so set in their views that they can't even stop to see that there's a difference between a consenting adult and a cow. There's also a difference between a consenting adult and a fifteen year old girl.
Young people need time to experiment with relationships. I'm not saying they need sexual experimentation either. I'm saying they need time to figure out what makes relationships work, and understand to be careful who they date, lest they be taken advantage of.
I'm not sure how old you are, but I'm going to assume you're older than fifteen. Think about the person or people you were dating or interested in dating at fifteen. Think about whether you'd like to be married to any of those people right now.
For me, the answer is no, definitely not. But I'm not sure if I'd have felt that way at fifteen.
And no, I wouldn't deny them their love. However, I don't feel that the government needs to endorse it, either. They can just wait three years, and then get married.
Gays don't have that luxury. Under the current laws in forty eight states, it doesn't matter how long they wait. They'll never be able to get married.
The Christian church has no right to claim sole ownership of marriage.
If I'm correct about what you're saying, this is another example of the "separate but equal" mentality that people against gay marriage are now embracing.
Unless they're hurting other people, I don't feel we have any right to stop them.
No matter how long gays wait, the current laws will not allow them to marry in most states. Until recently, gays in forty nine out of the fifty states couldn't get married at all.
I'm really not sure how you can equate a law designed to protect naive children or teens from being taken advantage of with a law that is designed only to deny a minority a right which harms no one.
I don't believe there are any other reasons to make it illegal for people to have sex with children. However, I also believe that the reason Xsyven gave was enough.
No, it's really not.
Young people need time to experiment with relationships. I'm not saying they need sexual experimentation either. I'm saying they need time to figure out what makes relationships work, and understand to be careful who they date, lest they be taken advantage of.
I'm not sure how old you are, but I'm going to assume you're older than fifteen. Think about the person or people you were dating or interested in dating at fifteen. Think about whether you'd like to be married to any of those people right now.
For me, the answer is no, definitely not. But I'm not sure if I'd have felt that way at fifteen.
Based on the premise that most fifteen year olds are not generally able to make sound decisions about relationships (as well as a lot of other things) at that age. I know I did some pretty stupid things when I was 15, and I know my friends were no different.
And no, I wouldn't deny them their love. However, I don't feel that the government needs to endorse it, either. They can just wait three years, and then get married.
Gays don't have that luxury. Under the current laws in forty eight states, it doesn't matter how long they wait. They'll never be able to get married.
Why? It's not as if marriage is the property of the Christian church, or any church. It was first a private contract between two people, and both the state and church got themselves involved later on.
The Christian church has no right to claim sole ownership of marriage.
You're wording here is a bit confusing, and I'm not sure exactly who you're replying to, but I think this is just a rephrasing of the notion you brought up earlier in this thread:
The only difference is that you are now phrasing it in terms of male/female, rather than gay/straight.
If I'm correct about what you're saying, this is another example of the "separate but equal" mentality that people against gay marriage are now embracing.
Who are we to tell blah blah blah what they can blah blah blah?
Unless they're hurting other people, I don't feel we have any right to stop them.
Then they wait a year. Problem solved.
No matter how long gays wait, the current laws will not allow them to marry in most states. Until recently, gays in forty nine out of the fifty states couldn't get married at all.
I'm really not sure how you can equate a law designed to protect naive children or teens from being taken advantage of with a law that is designed only to deny a minority a right which harms no one.
pockyD
Smash Legend
maturity is something that varies a ridiculous amount from person-to-person. Plenty of people are more mature at age 16 than others are at age 22 - 18 is just an arbitrary age the state sets because it's impossible to deal with these things on a case-by-case basis, not because 18 means you're ready
I bet a good number of people here have had sex before the age of 18
Sounds simple to you to "just wait three years" as someone who it doesn't affect
as a private contract, why SHOULD the state provide any recognition, much less benefits, for it?
I guess so? I don't really understand where this comes into play
Yes, that's exactly it - and the line between "male" and "female" is MUCH more well-defined than that between "gay" and "straight", which can't really be quantified at all.
Are two people legally different because one likes chocolate and the other one doesn't?
I brought up the men's rights vs women's rights as a GOOD argument for gay marriage against "separate but equal"; i don't buy the gay rights vs straight rights thing because, like i said, "gay" can't be quantified legally
right, this is the kind of non-argument that doesn't really say anything, which is why I'm tired of people re-stating it
I understand this. I'm not sure why you're telling me this, because it really doesn't help your argument any.
You were comparing gay marriage to marriage with people under eighteen, and you've just acknowledged that there is a legitimate reason to deny people under eighteen the right to marry. The reason you gave does not apply to gay marriages.
As far as I can tell, you just invalidated your own line of reasoning.
I think I worded that statement wrongly. I don't consider all people under the age of eighteen to be "children". I'm also not against teenagers having sex.
What I am against is teenagers entering into marriages with people who might take advantage of them. I imagine you are too. I think that's enough reason to outlaw such marriages, because many teenagers would be taken advantage of if the age of marriage was lowered.
That's my sole reason for opposing such a law, and as such, it really has nothing to do with gay marriage. Gays are adults, not minors, and should be legally allowed to make these decisions for themselves.
Yes, it is much easier to say than to do. But the consequences of changing the law to allow for marriage in the hypothetical situation you gave would be far reaching. It would effect not only couples who loved each other, but also couples in which one older person was trying to take advantage of a younger one.
So yes, I'd rather force the people who are in such loving relationships to wait a few years, rather than endanger many naive minors.
How does this relate to gay marriage, anyhow? If you're going to continue arguing for the rights of fifteen year olds to marry, I suggest you create a new topic. I don't think it has much relevance here.
I don't know that they should. I really have very little opinion on the matter, actually.
But I don't think they should surrender marriage to religious groups just because the Christians don't like what the government is doing with it. Neither group has any more right to marriage than the other.
You hear people claiming marriage is a Christian institution, and that the government has no right to change marriage, and you don't understand how what I said is relevant?
I think it's pretty obvious.
Gay can be qualified legally in the same way that other intangibles can be quantified legally. You've heard of people getting different sentences because they were deemed insane, haven't you? You can't feel someone's crotch and tell if they're insane or not, but the courts still accept insanity as moderating influence on criminal's sentences.
But mostly, if a man wants to marry another man, chances are pretty high that that man is gay.
It's not an argument at all. It's a statement of personal beliefs. It says something about why I have the stance I do on gay marriage.
Pedophilia is usually, in fact, is defined, by sexual arousal from prepubescent children. No child has the maturity level to fully understand love, nor the ability to experience sexual stimulation. And suppose a little girl were to hit puberty while she was married. Pregnancy at an early age is extremely dangerous. Plus, being a mother at that age would cripple her development and education. Very rarely do you see able mothers at 17 and younger.
How funny. Here, I'm saying that having children is the reason kids shouldn't get married, yet people don't think gays should marry because they can't have 'em.
A 20 year old can marry a 17 year old with parental consent.
So should we just drop age restrictions everywhere? Should driver's licenses be distributed to those who can drive-- not those with the maturity level of a 16 year old? Should cigarettes and alcohol be sold to those who just want a smoke and drink? Not to 18 and 21 year olds?
Usually with other pre-18 year olds.
I wish, as a gay American, that I could get married in three years....
HyugaRicdeau
Baller/Shot-caller
The quantification of "gay" (which by the way you could say the exact same thing about "straight") doesn't even need to enter into the discussion. It's simply a redefining of legal marriage from being between a man and a woman to between any two consenting adults. What is the problem with that definition? I couldn't care less if two guys who wanted to get married were actually gay or not, just like being in love (as if that could actually be measured) is not a legal requirement to get married now. I don't really even see a problem with letting multiple people get married. If they are all willing to have their property be mutually owned by one another then who cares.
pockyD
Smash Legend
Ok wow, the pedophilia has become a ridiculous tangent... the idea behind that was simply that the fact that people can't "control" that they're gay shouldn't affect whether or not it's legal (which neither of you are contesting btw) - that's it (though on that topic, it doesn't stop anyone from getting taken advantage of; i don't think anyone over-aged even cares about marrying a 12-year old when they could just have sex with them)
Mediocre;4805398I don't know that they should. I really have very little opinion on the matter said:
You're right, it shouldn't. Even if people could turn homosexuality on and off like a light switch, I would still support gay marriage.
Why? Because I see no reasons, save for religious ones, to oppose it.
You have yet to explain to me why the government should give it up.
Why, in your opinion, should the government not be allowed to marry people?
No.
I'm saying that your assertion that homosexuality is impossible to recognize legally is bogus.
And anyhow, there's no reason why they should have to prove they are gay at all. If a straight man and a straight woman, each of whom find the other totally unattractive, wanted to get married for some reason, would they have to prove that they loved each other? No.
Then why are you applying a double standard to same-sex marriages?
As far as I'm aware, I stated it once in my post.
Also, I suspect people bring it up because you guys seem to think there is something inherently wrong or inferior about homosexuality, and therefore about homosexual marriage. I think people who state their position like I did are subconsciously issuing a challenge to that belief.
We're hoping you'll give us some nonreligious reasons that homosexuality is wrong.
Why wouldn't it? I mean, I'm sure he'd like for gays to have equal rights this instant, but to me, three years does not seem an unreasonable time frame in which to enact this kind of change. In fact, I suspect it will actually take significantly longer than three years.
Of course, I can't speak for Xsyven, or for any gay person, but I'd be very happy if legalized bigotry against gay people was eliminated within three years.
Yes, and you gave only one piece of evidence to support your claim. You said that it was impossible to legally recognize gays, because sexual orientation can not be identified like gender can. I explained to you that other intangible, mental conditions were legally recognized, and you did not make any further arguments on that issue.
As far as I can tell, your single argument has been retorted, and you have yet to present another.
pockyD
Smash Legend
because marriage either has no real secular meaning, or it has the tested definition from 4000 years of tradition
this is once again, why secular marriage is pointless and why it has nothing to do with love. As far as I remember (I could easily be wrong about this), the institution of government-sanctioned marriage was to promote the creation of families or something, wasn't it?
and you did it only out of spite
it's not subconscious; it's very conscious isn't it?
you can have all the gay sex you want, i don't care, and that's not the issue behind this argument
...because for me it's the principal behind the issue, not the issue itself.
If you are willing to accept a law that states any gay couple is allowed to marry after 3 yrs of engagement, aren't most of the posts in this thread invalidated?
So given the hoops that lawyers have to jump through to validate pleas of insanity, you think it's reasonable to apply the same to gay marriage, which would happen hundreds/thousands of times a day?
Just to summarize the point that I'm arguing (not even really the point I believe in, but a thread where everyone sits around high-fiving each other does no one any good)
Marriage traditionally signifies a man and a woman (note: this is not a 'religious' assertion)
Secular marriage was created to promote the nuclear family
Given that it no longer does so (marriage != love), it serves no purpose in society
Instead of giving gays marriage benefits, the concept of marriage benefits should be eliminated
If marriage presents no benefits, then there is no need for the government to recognize it at all
HyugaRicdeau
Baller/Shot-caller
I have no problem with 'secular marriage' no longer existing, so long as there can be some way to give the rights currently afforded legally married people to them (and their gay counterparts) after the legal institution is abolished. Isn't what the whole motivation behind "gay marriage" is about?
- Status