So it's 6:00AM, I've got two problem sets due in 3 hours that I haven't finished, and I've got three midterms next week all in the same 24-hour period.
And yet, on my sleep deprivation and work overload, I feel the need to post a blog about a random musing I just had.
So I want to talk to you guys about gay marriage. Actually, that's a lie. I want to talk to you guys about arguments about gay marriage.
So a pretty common argument that opponents of gay marriage use is the "slippery slope," which isn't even the right application of the term "slippery slope," but I get what they're trying to say. They claim that if you legalize gay marriage, then you both violate the sanctity of marriage and open the gates to legalize other forms of marriage, each one of which will further violate the sanctity of marriage.
Now I was just thinking: doesn't that lead to a logical paradox?
The way I see it is like this: go back a few decades to the previous argument about marriage, interracial marriage. It was pretty taboo back before advancements in civil rights, and one can only imagine that people felt the same way about interracial marriage back then as they do about gay marriage now. Now if they used similar arguments in the past, then that means people would have considered interracial marriage a "gateway marriage" that would create a "slippery slope" for new types of marriage in the future, such as gay marriage.
Now consider two possibilities for this incorrectly named slippery slope: either the momentum of the slope is so great that legalization of all sorts of ridiculous marriage is inevitable, or the momentum of the slope is insufficient, and legalizing gay marriage does not in fact lead to a bunch of other marriages being legalized.
Now if the momentum of the slope is so great, why are people fighting against gay marriage? By their own words, IT'S INEVITABLE!!!!! They themselves are saying that gay marriage is the inevitable result of interracial marriage becoming acceptable decades ago, a result which was guaranteed once people started getting interracial marriages. In other words, this snowballing chain of progressively ridiculous marriages has already been started, even before gay marriage becomes legalized everywhere. Arguments against it are therefore moot.
Consider the other possibility - that gay marriage will not lead to other types of marriage being legalized in the future. This is the possibility that is true if opponents of gay marriage actually manage to stop gay marriage. Gay marriage is the result of the "slippery slope" of interracial marriage, but if it never gets legalized because of the actions of those who are fighting against it, then the slippery slope is harmless anyway! We could have legalized gay marriage WITHOUT worrying about interspecies marriage and whatnot in the future, as evidenced by the failure to legalize gay marriage!
TL;DR - either the slippery slope is there and there's no point arguing against gay marriage, or it's not there, and you can't actually use it as an argument. Either way, the "slippery slope" is a stupid argument.
Also, on a completely unrelated note, I would just like to leave this here and say that Taeyeon is beautiful: + Show Spoiler +
Marriage has sanctity in the US only because of its ties to Christianity. + Establishment clause discourages (or to use a stronger word, prohibits) lawmaking that favors one religion over others. = The word 'marriage' shouldn't be in law, the word should be replaced entirely by 'civil union' to deal with the legal aspects of it. M+M = F+F = "civil union" in many states right now, but M+F = "marriage"? I'm pretty sure we've been done with that separate but equal crap for like 40+ years now. Let everybody be legally bound by civil unions; marriage should be an issue outside of the hands of law.
and yeah it's stupid to argue that way. i don't care if there is marriage for gay people or not. and i don't know why anyone does (even why gay people would care). only thing may be some financial advantages you get from marriage (get rid of those or let everyone merrily marry who the F they want).
On February 10 2011 20:48 green.at wrote: i like the "i am not gay" at the end :D
Haha, didn't even realize it could be interpreted that way. Doesn't work, though. Gay people also think Taeyeon is beautiful, because Taeyeon is beautiful regardless of your sexual preference.
I still strongly believe that EVERYONE, gay and straight, should get civil unions and leave what "marriage" is to everybody's personal interpretation.
Then everybody wins. The government becomes neutral and the churches can do whatever they want since marriage is no longer a legally recognized institution. Plus, the next time some group wants to have the rights of marriage (for example, polyamorists wanting group marriages) it can be strictly a legal question and the religious rhetoric can stay out of it...
I do not agree with "gay marriage". Marriage has been in our culture for hundreds of years, it's a bond between a man and women. I am not religious whatsoever but I still believe that the bond that is marriage deserves and should be kept "sacred" as much as possible. Does this mean I have something against gay people? No, not at all. I am very liberal and fact is that for example here in Sweden gay people can just do a partnership which gives them exactly the same thing as a marriage.
The big paradox when it comes to gay marriage is this: Christianity does not agree with people being gay. According to the bible it's a sin to live a gay lifestyle and it should be and has been throughout history - punished by death. So why would gay people ever want to marriage in a church who thinks about them as lesser people?
I'd like to know some more about that "slippery slope" argument, what is down that slope anyway? Is it marriage between kids? Marriage between humans and pets? Marriage between humans and robots? Between kitchen appliances and cars? I don't see way how the "slippery slope" argument could be used without implying that interracial marriage and gay marriage twist the concept of marriage. I wouldn't expect a person holding that belief to come up with a reasonable and sensible explanation for it.
In general the slippery slope argument can be a sound one, even if it doesn't seem to make much sense here. Slippery slope is not the same as inevitability, it just means it gets harder to stop the longer you keep going. Stopping is still possible, unless the slope turns into free fall.. but then we get another analogy.
Edit: Just want to point out that I'm using "marriage" in the practical sense rather than the religious sense. The concept of marriage is used all over the world,
On February 10 2011 21:40 NotSupporting wrote: I do not agree with "gay marriage". Marriage has been in our culture for hundreds of years, it's a bond between a man and women. I am not religious whatsoever but I still believe that the bond that is marriage deserves and should be kept "sacred" as much as possible. Does this mean I have something against gay people? No, not at all. I am very liberal and fact is that for example here in Sweden gay people can just do a partnership which gives them exactly the same thing as a marriage.
The big paradox when it comes to gay marriage is this: Christianity does not agree with people being gay. According to the bible it's a sin to live a gay lifestyle and it should be and has been throughout history - punished by death. So why would gay people ever want to marriage in a church who thinks about them as lesser people?
Anything "sacred" about marriage was dissolved when the government decided to treat married couples differently and better.
If people want marriage to be a holy bond between just a man and just a woman, there has to be a separation between marriage and state, or you are GROSSLY violating homosexuals rights as citizens.
Despite me being an atheist, I do not believe that same sex marriage should be allowed. Call me a hater, i'm just old fashioned. There are plenty of straight couples who choose to not get married. Why fight for something that has persecuted homosexuality for thousands of years. should be above that by now.
On February 10 2011 21:57 Phayze wrote: Why fight for something that has persecuted homosexuality for thousands of years. should be above that by now.
Assumption of Spouse’s Pension Automatic Inheritance Automatic Housing Lease Transfer Bereavement Leave Burial Determination Child Custody Crime Victim’s Recovery Benefits Divorce Protections Domestic Violence Protection Exemption from Property Tax on Partner’s Death Immunity from Testifying Against Spouse Insurance Breaks Joint Adoption and Foster Care Joint Bankruptcy Joint Parenting (Insurance Coverage, School Records) Medical Decisions on Behalf of Partner Certain Property Rights Reduced Rate Memberships Sick Leave to Care for Partner Visitation of Partner’s Children Visitation of Partner in Hospital or Prison Wrongful Death (Loss of Consort) Benefits
A lot simply just want to be treated equally, even if not in marriage, a domestic partnership of sorts...
On February 10 2011 21:40 NotSupporting wrote: I do not agree with "gay marriage". Marriage has been in our culture for hundreds of years, it's a bond between a man and women. I am not religious whatsoever but I still believe that the bond that is marriage deserves and should be kept "sacred" as much as possible. Does this mean I have something against gay people? No, not at all. I am very liberal and fact is that for example here in Sweden gay people can just do a partnership which gives them exactly the same thing as a marriage.
The big paradox when it comes to gay marriage is this: Christianity does not agree with people being gay. According to the bible it's a sin to live a gay lifestyle and it should be and has been throughout history - punished by death. So why would gay people ever want to marriage in a church who thinks about them as lesser people?
You completely misunderstand the issue. I'll just make a list:
A) There can be no "sacred" institute in government, at the very least in the USA's government, which seems to be the topic of the conversation. It has been fiercely stated time and time again since the government's inception that there can be no religious involvement in government institute, and anything being referred to as "sacred," clearly violates that.
B) Gay marriage is not so gays can get married in churches. I don't know why you think that's the issue -- it's about being seen as equal to heterosexual couples in the eyes of the goverment. There's no blessed ceremony, there's no inclination of necessary tradition. It's purely equality.
C) A "parternship" is not the same as a "marriage," -- even if in paper it seems exact. We USA folk have, in recent memory, had an issue of two institutions that were separated, but considered "equal," and it was one of the gravest travesties of inequality since slavery was abolished. You cannot call two things equal and give them different titles, the different titles imply something inequal about the two, and this will ALWAYS lead to discrimination. Giving it a different title is quite clearly giving ground to bigotry, which leads me to--
D) Saying you're quite liberal in your ways does not justify what you're saying when you oppose the rights of homosexuals to marry. It's almost identical to the argument of, "I've got a lot of black friends so I'm not racist!" -- you may be the most liberal, rights supporting person of all time in every other subject, but if you oppose the rights of homosexuals to be seen as completely and genuinely equal, then you are erring on the side of bigotry.
You pointed out that things are different and, presumably, less hostile in Sweden. I do not have the context of how Sweden has been as a society and how relevant the separate but equal thing is, but as I clearly don't understand Sweden's context, you clearly don't understand America's context. What you suggest has been done before and was disgustingly criminal, and it is almost entirely because of that that you can't cede ground at let the bigots force you to define your partnership as something separate from theirs. You don't give ground to bigots because all it does is encourage more bigotry.
Either way, the "slippery slope" is a stupid argument.
Correct. You will also find that people who use 'slippery slope' as an argument for anything are generally stupid.
Yeah, basically. I mean, I kept on calling it the "incorrectly named slippery slope argument," because the actual definition of a slippery slope is a logical fallacy. It is effectively making a long chain of tenuous connections to arrive at an unlikely result, and using it in an argument.
In addition to Fa1nT's list, add immigration rights (i.e. a non-US citizen can marry a US citizen and guarantee immigration to the US).
Gay marriage wouldn't even be an issue in the US if marriage didn't have so many legal benefits. At it stands right now, if you don't get married you miss out on a pretty big tax break, among other things. The issue is easily solved by replacing marriage with civil unions as a legal entity. Then churches can just marry whoever they feel is right based on their faith.
Trying to figure out what else after gay marriage could be next.. I mean, there isn't anything is there? Animals (pretty sure that has happened somewhere) , children (Happens a lot in some cultures) , themselves (Hey Dennis Rodman did it..)..?
I don't see what else is left for people to worry about.. (well someone in Japan married their dating game girlfriend, so yeah ok.. maybe your correct)
On February 10 2011 21:40 NotSupporting wrote: Christianity does not agree with people being gay. According to the bible it's a sin to live a gay lifestyle and it should be and has been throughout history - punished by death.
It is also a big sin to have sex outside of marriage. How many people do that?
Love the post OP. Yet another fun thing to talk to JVs about.
A) There can be no "sacred" institute in government, at the very least in the USA's government, which seems to be the topic of the conversation. It has been fiercely stated time and time again since the government's inception that there can be no religious involvement in government institute, and anything being referred to as "sacred," clearly violates that.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Congressional sessions open with the swearing of the Pledge, as do government meetings at local levels, meetings held by the Knights of Columbus, Royal Rangers, Boy Scouts of America, Girl Scouts of the USA, Fraternal Order of Eagles, Freemasons, Toastmasters International and their concordant bodies, as well as other organizations.
hmm....
liberty and justice for all do in my opinion say that all citizens are equal - why treat 2 people who want to have their relationship become official and sealed for a lifetime different than 2 other people?
On February 10 2011 21:40 NotSupporting wrote: According to the bible it's a sin to live a gay lifestyle and it should be and has been throughout history - punished by death. So why would gay people ever want to marriage in a church who thinks about them as lesser people?
They don't, necessarily, they just don't want a legal code that separates them from straight couples. I.e., see my above post (and the post two below mine) about how all legal unions should be the same "civil unions" and marriage shouldn't be in law.
and open the gates to legalize other forms of marriage, each one of which will further violate the sanctity of marriage.
Examples? Because i have never heard this argument before.
It is usually just religous beliefs or personal moral beliefs that i hear people talk about on this issue. Personally i am against gay marriage.
Why are you against gay marriage? Are you also against interracial marriage? Are you also against inter-religion marriage? I don't understand why you would care about what other people do when it isn't anything that is causing harm to someone.
and open the gates to legalize other forms of marriage, each one of which will further violate the sanctity of marriage.
Examples? Because i have never heard this argument before.
It is usually just religous beliefs or personal moral beliefs that i hear people talk about on this issue. Personally i am against gay marriage.
Would you support purging marriage from law and replacing it (in law) with civil unions equal for both gay and straight unions? Marriage would still exist, of course, but only in the realm of religion / personal life.
A) There can be no "sacred" institute in government, at the very least in the USA's government, which seems to be the topic of the conversation. It has been fiercely stated time and time again since the government's inception that there can be no religious involvement in government institute, and anything being referred to as "sacred," clearly violates that.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Congressional sessions open with the swearing of the Pledge, as do government meetings at local levels, meetings held by the Knights of Columbus, Royal Rangers, Boy Scouts of America, Girl Scouts of the USA, Fraternal Order of Eagles, Freemasons, Toastmasters International and their concordant bodies, as well as other organizations.
hmm....
liberty and justice for all do in my opinion say that all citizens are equal - why treat 2 people who want to have their relationship become official and sealed for a lifetime different than 2 other people?
The pledge is not an institution and any letter of law is completely removed from religion, or at the very least is intended to be, despite the efforts of fundamentalists who are not interested in equality, anyhow. You clearly didn't understand what I said and are grasping at straws to diss the, admittedly flawed, USA institute.
A) There can be no "sacred" institute in government, at the very least in the USA's government, which seems to be the topic of the conversation. It has been fiercely stated time and time again since the government's inception that there can be no religious involvement in government institute, and anything being referred to as "sacred," clearly violates that.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Congressional sessions open with the swearing of the Pledge, as do government meetings at local levels, meetings held by the Knights of Columbus, Royal Rangers, Boy Scouts of America, Girl Scouts of the USA, Fraternal Order of Eagles, Freemasons, Toastmasters International and their concordant bodies, as well as other organizations.
hmm....
liberty and justice for all do in my opinion say that all citizens are equal - why treat 2 people who want to have their relationship become official and sealed for a lifetime different than 2 other people?
The pledge is not an institution and any letter of law is completely removed from religion, or at the very least is intended to be, despite the efforts of fundamentalists who are not interested in equality, anyhow. You clearly didn't understand what I said and are grasping at straws to diss the, admittedly flawed, USA institute.
I'm not, it's an example of how religion IS present in politics.
but we should get back to topic as I'm clearly not the expert on this (not even living in the USA) and after all we're on the same page concerning the OP's thoughts.
there's really not much of a paradox. you're either a bigoted piece of shit or you're not.
On February 10 2011 23:26 bonifaceviii wrote: All legal benefits should be stripped from marriage, as it is a religious/cultural institution. It has no place in legislation.
I think it would be better to keep the legal perks (tax, visitation in hospital, whatever) but stop pretending that the church has a monopoly on the word
A) There can be no "sacred" institute in government, at the very least in the USA's government, which seems to be the topic of the conversation. It has been fiercely stated time and time again since the government's inception that there can be no religious involvement in government institute, and anything being referred to as "sacred," clearly violates that.
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
Congressional sessions open with the swearing of the Pledge, as do government meetings at local levels, meetings held by the Knights of Columbus, Royal Rangers, Boy Scouts of America, Girl Scouts of the USA, Fraternal Order of Eagles, Freemasons, Toastmasters International and their concordant bodies, as well as other organizations.
hmm....
liberty and justice for all do in my opinion say that all citizens are equal - why treat 2 people who want to have their relationship become official and sealed for a lifetime different than 2 other people?
The pledge is not an institution and any letter of law is completely removed from religion, or at the very least is intended to be, despite the efforts of fundamentalists who are not interested in equality, anyhow. You clearly didn't understand what I said and are grasping at straws to diss the, admittedly flawed, USA institute.
I'm not, it's an example of how religion IS present in politics.
but we should get back to topic as I'm clearly not the expert on this (not even living in the USA) and after all we're on the same page concerning the OP's thoughts.
Religion is only present in politics insofar as most politicians are religious, which is a result of our American culture where a significant majority of people are Christian, and feel more comfortable with a Christian politician as their representative. Very few politicians flaunt their atheism while campaigning, because it's a suicide move.
Also, the phrase "under God" was added to the pledge in 1954, during an era of scare tactics like McCarthyism. You don't think it's an attempt to appeal to the fears of the Christian demographic? "Oh dear, if we don't put under God, then America will be godless, and that's incredibly awful because then we'll be like those awful, awful communists and we don't want to be awful! Let's cling onto religion!"
Also, there really is no topic. I didn't mean for this blog to turn into a debate on gay marriage, because frankly, it's going to go nowhere. People who support it have their reasons, and people who are against gay marriage have it so deeply ingrained in their mindset that no amount of reasoning will sway them.
I was really just posting a musing on why you can never argue with a "slippery slope" against the nth step of a slippery slope, where n>1.
On February 10 2011 21:40 NotSupporting wrote: I do not agree with "gay marriage". Marriage has been in our culture for hundreds of years, it's a bond between a man and women. I am not religious whatsoever but I still believe that the bond that is marriage deserves and should be kept "sacred" as much as possible. Does this mean I have something against gay people? No, not at all. I am very liberal and fact is that for example here in Sweden gay people can just do a partnership which gives them exactly the same thing as a marriage.
The big paradox when it comes to gay marriage is this: Christianity does not agree with people being gay. According to the bible it's a sin to live a gay lifestyle and it should be and has been throughout history - punished by death. So why would gay people ever want to marriage in a church who thinks about them as lesser people?
You completely misunderstand the issue. I'll just make a list:
A) There can be no "sacred" institute in government, at the very least in the USA's government, which seems to be the topic of the conversation. It has been fiercely stated time and time again since the government's inception that there can be no religious involvement in government institute, and anything being referred to as "sacred," clearly violates that.
B) Gay marriage is not so gays can get married in churches. I don't know why you think that's the issue -- it's about being seen as equal to heterosexual couples in the eyes of the goverment. There's no blessed ceremony, there's no inclination of necessary tradition. It's purely equality.
C) A "parternship" is not the same as a "marriage," -- even if in paper it seems exact. We USA folk have, in recent memory, had an issue of two institutions that were separated, but considered "equal," and it was one of the gravest travesties of inequality since slavery was abolished. You cannot call two things equal and give them different titles, the different titles imply something inequal about the two, and this will ALWAYS lead to discrimination. Giving it a different title is quite clearly giving ground to bigotry, which leads me to--
D) Saying you're quite liberal in your ways does not justify what you're saying when you oppose the rights of homosexuals to marry. It's almost identical to the argument of, "I've got a lot of black friends so I'm not racist!" -- you may be the most liberal, rights supporting person of all time in every other subject, but if you oppose the rights of homosexuals to be seen as completely and genuinely equal, then you are erring on the side of bigotry.
You pointed out that things are different and, presumably, less hostile in Sweden. I do not have the context of how Sweden has been as a society and how relevant the separate but equal thing is, but as I clearly don't understand Sweden's context, you clearly don't understand America's context. What you suggest has been done before and was disgustingly criminal, and it is almost entirely because of that that you can't cede ground at let the bigots force you to define your partnership as something separate from theirs. You don't give ground to bigots because all it does is encourage more bigotry.
Oh, sorry if I misunderstood it then, in Sweden we actually have this right now as we speak. Marriage and Partnership is EXACTLY the same thing here, same rights, viewed the same by government only difference is the name. I though USA had the same thing...
It's already been mentioned in the thread, slippery slope is a form of logical fallacy.
Therefore, it's use as an argument is invalid.
This isn't to say there aren't any arguments against gay marriage, but that's not at all what the main point of the thread is.
And slippery slope is also only a logical fallacy, which means that it doesn't necessarily hold to be true. So it could be true, and if a person believes it to be true, then that person probably has all the evidence he or she needs.
But if we're talking formal logic, then yeah, that doesn't hold.
Then again, in typical American politics, you meet logical fallacies all over the place. Ad Hominem, or attacking a person instead of attacking the argument, is used repeatedly, same with sweeping generalizations, irrelevant conclusions... and everything else.
On February 10 2011 23:19 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: Would you support purging marriage from law and replacing it (in law) with civil unions equal for both gay and straight unions? Marriage would still exist, of course, but only in the realm of religion / personal life.
no
Why are you against gay marriage?
Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman.
Are you also against interracial marriage? Are you also against inter-religion marriage? I don't understand why you would care about what other people do when it isn't anything that is causing harm to someone.
As long as it is between a man and a woman then i don't care.
On February 10 2011 23:19 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: Would you support purging marriage from law and replacing it (in law) with civil unions equal for both gay and straight unions? Marriage would still exist, of course, but only in the realm of religion / personal life.
Are you also against interracial marriage? Are you also against inter-religion marriage? I don't understand why you would care about what other people do when it isn't anything that is causing harm to someone.
As long as it is between a man and a woman then i don't care.
You're applying your values of a right between two people upon others. Though its a silly comparison, it wasn't too long ago that black people weren't legally considered people (well, sorta) in the united states. Should we impress our beliefs of something upon others? Or, ultimately, who are you to say that marriage is between a man and a woman? Why is your opinion correct over others? Hasn't there been other things that have been true for many years that is now not seen as being true (woman as being the care takers of the house)? Should it stay true forever just because its true now?
I mean, he basically just said, "Why am I against marriage that's not between a man and a woman? Because marriage is between a man and a woman."
I'm going to start applying this to every argument from now on.
Why is Flash a worse Terran than Fantasy? Because Fantasy is better than Flash. Why is Bisu the best Protoss ever? Because he is the best Protoss ever. Why are all genres of music outside of Korean pop illegitimate? Because Korean pop is the only legitimate genre of music.
On February 10 2011 23:19 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: Would you support purging marriage from law and replacing it (in law) with civil unions equal for both gay and straight unions? Marriage would still exist, of course, but only in the realm of religion / personal life.
While I am against gay marriage, I pro civil union that grants the couple equal spousal rights. My favorite pro-gay marriage argument is "We should allow gay marriages so they can enjoy the joys of divorce."
On February 11 2011 14:28 holy_war wrote: While I am against gay marriage, I pro civil union that grants the couple equal spousal rights. My favorite pro-gay marriage argument is "We should allow gay marriages so they can enjoy the joys of divorce."
I'll ask you the same question I asked the other anti-gay-marriage guy, would you support purging "marriage" from law?
On February 11 2011 14:28 holy_war wrote: While I am against gay marriage, I pro civil union that grants the couple equal spousal rights. My favorite pro-gay marriage argument is "We should allow gay marriages so they can enjoy the joys of divorce."
I'll ask you the same question I asked the other anti-gay-marriage guy, would you support purging "marriage" from law?
No I would not because I think the term "marriage" is still highly regarded in our society. Are you arguing for "marriage" to be purged in favor of "civil union" from a legal standpoint?
On February 11 2011 07:40 Comeh wrote: Though its a silly comparison, it wasn't too long ago that black people weren't legally considered people (well, sorta) in the united states. Should we impress our beliefs of something upon others?
So you would allow men to marry more than one woman as in other countries? After all who are you to impose your belief system upon others?
Or, ultimately, who are you to say that marriage is between a man and a woman? Why is your opinion correct over others? Hasn't there been other things that have been true for many years that is now not seen as being true (woman as being the care takers of the house)? Should it stay true forever just because its true now?
I do not think tradition is a bad thing. I know a few gay guys and what might surprise you is hardly any of them actually want gay marriage to be allowed , they are happy with the way things are now.
On February 11 2011 14:28 holy_war wrote: While I am against gay marriage, I pro civil union that grants the couple equal spousal rights. My favorite pro-gay marriage argument is "We should allow gay marriages so they can enjoy the joys of divorce."
I'll ask you the same question I asked the other anti-gay-marriage guy, would you support purging "marriage" from law?
No I would not because I think the term "marriage" is still highly regarded in our society. Are you arguing for "marriage" to be purged in favor of "civil union" from a legal standpoint?
Yeah. And of course it's highly regarded, but that doesn't mean it has to be a legal term. Hell, with the way most people view government, it might be better as a completely civil, non-legal term. I can't really see why people would have a problem with this. It's not like anyone would suddenly be unable to say "we're married!" or anything.
How would replacing "marriage" with "civil union" in law do anything to how marriage is regarded from a social standpoint?
Well, even though "slippery slope" is a fallacy, that line of reasoning is nonetheless oftentimes quite valid, at least in its conclusion.
James Madison's response to Patrick Henry's General Assessment Bill uses the slippery slope argument as one of its core components. In essence, Henry wanted to implement state support for religion in the form of tax support. Each taxpayer would choose which church would receive his/her portion of the tax money. Madison argued, among other things, that this violated the Virgina Bill of Rights and that, if the legislature could in effect 'establish' Christianity (and particular forms of it at that, as the Baptists, Quakers, and Mennonites were extremely opposed to this tax support) it could just as easily nominate a particular Christian sect to receive tax support. Likewise, if the legislature could violate a single element of the fundamental law of Virginia, it could turn around and run roughshod over the rest of the enshrined rights of the people.
Of course, there are huuuge differences between the application of that and gay marriage in terms of slippery slope, but its interesting nonetheless
Also, I noticed some people mentioning religious law in the United States. It's important to note that, regardless of our contemporary views, the 1st Amendment is worded to be extremely limiting, especially given as it only pertains to Congress as per original intent (a method of interpreting the Constitution which has largely been discredited). Remember that it was the same Framers who wrote the first amendment and then literally turned around and paid for Christian Protestant missionaries to spread the faith among natives. Likewise, all public schools were Protestant in their teachings (including using the King James Version of the Bible) and federal and state support for religious schools was commonplace for decades. Hell, Georgetown was founded with a federal land grant!
The "establishment" of religion is something that is extremely vague in terms of what the hell establishment really means.
I don't recall if anyone brought up polygamy, but remember that the government retains the right to interfere with the practice, not the belief, of religion. But that's another matter entirely.
As for gay marriage, I firmly believe it is simply a matter of time before it is ruled to be constitutional (all the great political questions in the United States are solved in the courts). If "separate but equal" was deemed unconstitutional, I can't legally understand how, in the end, gay marriage can be prevented. So long as the legal institution of marriage exists with differences between it and a civil union, denying gays the right to marry is a clear violation of their civil liberties. Even if civil unions had 100% of the same legal benefits of a marriage, the logic behind striking "separate but equal" from the lawbooks still applies.
In short, there's no good legal and, in the scope of the Constitution, reasonable constitutional justification for prohibition of gay marriage, at least from the small amount of research I've put into it.
On February 11 2011 07:40 Comeh wrote: Though its a silly comparison, it wasn't too long ago that black people weren't legally considered people (well, sorta) in the united states. Should we impress our beliefs of something upon others?
So you would allow men to marry more than one woman as in other countries? After all who are you to impose your belief system upon others?
Or, ultimately, who are you to say that marriage is between a man and a woman? Why is your opinion correct over others? Hasn't there been other things that have been true for many years that is now not seen as being true (woman as being the care takers of the house)? Should it stay true forever just because its true now?
I do not think tradition is a bad thing. I know a few gay guys and what might surprise you is hardly any of them actually want gay marriage to be allowed , they are happy with the way things are now.
Strawman
The issue is not about polygamy, or bestiality, or anything else. It's about marriage between two consenting adults that happen to be of the same gender.
Can you give a LEGITIMATE LOGICAL reason as to why this is a bad thing??
The main thing about the gay marriage slippery slope is that you have to allow gay marriage... if you start outlawing gay marriage, and have the government step in and say who can marry who, it's a slippery slow and it's only a matter of time before the government outlaws interracial marriage, interreligious marriage, and eventually all of marriage itself.
To fight the slippery slope, we must not ban gay marriage-- or else who knows what could happen. The tradition of marriage is under assault by these people trying to stop some marriages, and we must defend the sanctity of all gay marriages, lest others come under assault.
On February 11 2011 07:40 Comeh wrote: Though its a silly comparison, it wasn't too long ago that black people weren't legally considered people (well, sorta) in the united states. Should we impress our beliefs of something upon others?
So you would allow men to marry more than one woman as in other countries? After all who are you to impose your belief system upon others?
Or, ultimately, who are you to say that marriage is between a man and a woman? Why is your opinion correct over others? Hasn't there been other things that have been true for many years that is now not seen as being true (woman as being the care takers of the house)? Should it stay true forever just because its true now?
I do not think tradition is a bad thing. I know a few gay guys and what might surprise you is hardly any of them actually want gay marriage to be allowed , they are happy with the way things are now.
Using slippery slope and an anecdote in the same post is a pretty bizarre way to argue, lol.
Some food for thought. What about atheist couples who become married via a courthouse, with no religious involvement? That shouldn't be labeled a marriage either considering that there was no ceremony with no priest/pastor etc. You can't pick and choose the parts of the bible/religion you want to follow and ignore the rest.
Strike the term marriage from all legal terminology and replace it with civil union. Leave the term marriage in the churches where it belongs. If you are truly a christian, whether your government labels it marriage or civil union or whatever, their name for it shouldn't matter because you went through the steps of your religion to be married.
The argument isn't about the name, its about equal treatment of people. Its ridiculous how blind people can be.
On February 11 2011 07:40 Comeh wrote: Though its a silly comparison, it wasn't too long ago that black people weren't legally considered people (well, sorta) in the united states. Should we impress our beliefs of something upon others?
So you would allow men to marry more than one woman as in other countries? After all who are you to impose your belief system upon others?
Or, ultimately, who are you to say that marriage is between a man and a woman? Why is your opinion correct over others? Hasn't there been other things that have been true for many years that is now not seen as being true (woman as being the care takers of the house)? Should it stay true forever just because its true now?
I do not think tradition is a bad thing. I know a few gay guys and what might surprise you is hardly any of them actually want gay marriage to be allowed , they are happy with the way things are now.
You "knowing a few gay guys" does not give an accurate representation of what the majority of them do or do not want. I highly doubt any of them stated " I don't want gay marriage to be allowed" because frankly why would they? It means nothing to them if gay marriage is or isn't allowed because they still have a choice either way.
Your first argument pretty much proves the OP's point, it's a classic slippery slope argument that has no real bearing on reality.
The thing about tradition is that it CAN BE a bad thing( like you know...slavery or other such traditional things from way back when.) I think the word marriage should be stripped from a legal standpoint because it gives the Church a false sense of power in a place it shouldn't have...governmental legal issues. If marriages didn't grant couples a plethora of rights that you otherwise wouldn't have than people wouldn't give two shits if gay marriage was legal or not.
Unfortunately for the church marriage gives a ton of fringe benefits, several of which like hospital visitation are rather important for a strong relationship. You can keep your marriage if you want, but the word marriage itself should be replaced by Civil Union in every place that it's mentioned in law. If you want to be real technical about it I am not " married" to my wife. We never went and had a priest bless our union or any other such thing because I'm not religious. Without all that I can't rightly be considered married because well...I'm really not. In the eyes of the law however I am treated as if I had simply because of a word that's used and a piece of paper I own.
Well, I just wanted to point out a few things after reading this blog.
First of all, for people of religious nature (I phrase it like this to try and be as encompassing as possible of people of faith) who look to their church for guidance and truth (we will leave out whether or not this is a good thing, as that is a completely separate issue and too much debate could come about concerning that), they have legitimate claims to not want gay marriage to be legalized. If the Church is to say gay marriage is wrong, followers can't simply say F off I think they should be married. You can't pick and choose at your own personal whim if what the church does is right or wrong. (READ: now this is not to say that you can't disagree or question, but a lot of people do think about it and are conflicted, so the church is where they turn. DO NOT get what I said confused with "People must accept and do everything the Church says." If they see the church's opinion and decide they agree or disagree is their prerogative, but we cannot blame them for their choice, no more than we could disagree with someone being catholic and blame them for going to church or listening to what their pastor says.)
Second of all, for the people who suggested or agreed with replacing marriage with civil union. No, you are wrong in my opinion. I am not saying that this can't be done, and you could be right in saying it should be done. However, to simply say "lets get the red pen out and cross out marriage and write in civil union" is simple minded and naive. It can't be done by a swift doctoring of the records. There is too much importance already placed on the word marriage for it to just "be done" like that. Second of all, if anyone has really studied American Constitutional Law (I will assume that this is where most of the discussion was considered in context of) than you will know the complications that can arise from that. For example, the difference between the "clear and present danger test" laid out in the Schenck US Supreme Court Case and the "Bad tendency test" laid out in the Abrams case is differentiated substantially simply because of the changing in wording. They look similar on face value, but because of the word changing in the latter, the test was dramatically changed.
I am not saying that it would be a bad thing to replace it, I am not saying that we shouldn't try to, I am simply saying that everyone suggests that like it is some easy simple fix to the issue, and it is not.
Lastly, I like how proponents of Gay marriage being legal like to use logic to talk about the issue. When someone disagrees though, they are called a bigot, among other things. Ad hominem/poisoning the well fallacy. I just laughed when I saw people do it in this blog because it really is ironic.
Also, to avoid any of you calling me a sophist for not posting my opinion and simply trying to argue against yours.
I am for gay marriage. I see no reason why two people of the same sex who have the same love, admiration and devotion to each other should not be able to enjoy the same benefits of heterosexual couples. I don't want to know that a person on their deathbed could not see their significant other (or whatever the politically correct term is today) because they did not have the benefits of marriage from the state.
I don't lash out and call people who are against it bigots and religious extremists though, as is the popular thing to do for many people who are proponents of gay marriage. I understand the real reluctance that some people have to it. I just disagree with them...respectfully.
On February 11 2011 21:17 Mikusbunkarus wrote: Second of all, for the people who suggested or agreed with replacing marriage with civil union. No, you are wrong in my opinion. I am not saying that this can't be done, and you could be right in saying it should be done. However, to simply say "lets get the red pen out and cross out marriage and write in civil union" is simple minded and naive. It can't be done by a swift doctoring of the records. There is too much importance already placed on the word marriage for it to just "be done" like that. Second of all, if anyone has really studied American Constitutional Law (I will assume that this is where most of the discussion was considered in context of) than you will know the complications that can arise from that. For example, the difference between the "clear and present danger test" laid out in the Schenck US Supreme Court Case and the "Bad tendency test" laid out in the Abrams case is differentiated substantially simply because of the changing in wording. They look similar on face value, but because of the word changing in the latter, the test was dramatically changed.
Could you be more specific on your first point? The entire issue is that there is so much importance placed on the word marriage due to tradition and religious groups trying to take claim over the ownership of the word. Of course they might get angry, but "their" word shouldn't be in law in the first place.
As for the wording possibly changing policy, can you be more specific on how any ambiguities/complications could arise from "marriage"->"civil union"? I'm not convinced by your parallel.
On February 11 2011 07:40 Comeh wrote: Though its a silly comparison, it wasn't too long ago that black people weren't legally considered people (well, sorta) in the united states. Should we impress our beliefs of something upon others?
So you would allow men to marry more than one woman as in other countries? After all who are you to impose your belief system upon others?
Or, ultimately, who are you to say that marriage is between a man and a woman? Why is your opinion correct over others? Hasn't there been other things that have been true for many years that is now not seen as being true (woman as being the care takers of the house)? Should it stay true forever just because its true now?
I do not think tradition is a bad thing. I know a few gay guys and what might surprise you is hardly any of them actually want gay marriage to be allowed , they are happy with the way things are now.
Strawman
The issue is not about polygamy, or bestiality, or anything else. It's about marriage between two consenting adults that happen to be of the same gender.
Can you give a LEGITIMATE LOGICAL reason as to why this is a bad thing??
and open the gates to legalize other forms of marriage, each one of which will further violate the sanctity of marriage.
So i will restate my original question in this thread , what was the OP inferring when he speaks about 'illegal' forms of marriage if not polygamy or bestiality? Marriage between first cousins? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7238356.stm
"The vast majority of marriages in the Muslim community of Bradford, 80% are trans-continental and the majority of those are to cousins and many of those do result in either infant mortality or recessive disorders that I have seen," she told Today.
I am morally against gay marriage and gay adoption , like how some people are opposed to abortion or US soldiers being the 'peacekeepers' of the world.Once again , marriage = 1 man and 1 woman.
On February 10 2011 23:19 SpiritoftheTunA wrote: Would you support purging marriage from law and replacing it (in law) with civil unions equal for both gay and straight unions? Marriage would still exist, of course, but only in the realm of religion / personal life.
Well it sounds like something a crazy liberal would legislate. 2 Gay people cannot theoretically procreate therefore it isn't marriage , two men cannot provide a balanced upbringing for potential children (even if they could have any). Lack of morals = one of the big reasons the west is in decline. As long as stuff is CHEAP who cares if it's made by slaves in China working 16 hours a day for a bowl of rice.One example of many.
On February 11 2011 23:38 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Well it sounds like something a crazy liberal would legislate. 2 Gay people cannot theoretically procreate therefore it isn't marriage , two men cannot provide a balanced upbringing for potential children (even if they could have any). Lack of morals = one of the big reasons the west is in decline. As long as stuff is CHEAP who cares if it's made by slaves in China working 16 hours a day for a bowl of rice.One example of many.
Which is why old people and sterile people are also barred from marrying.
Yeah your morals = absolute morals and since the West doesn't follow YOUR morals it's in decline, ok.
On February 11 2011 23:38 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Well it sounds like something a crazy liberal would legislate. 2 Gay people cannot theoretically procreate therefore it isn't marriage , two men cannot provide a balanced upbringing for potential children (even if they could have any). Lack of morals = one of the big reasons the west is in decline. As long as stuff is CHEAP who cares if it's made by slaves in China working 16 hours a day for a bowl of rice.One example of many.
Should sterile men or women be banned from marriage?
You seem to think marriage involved procreation by definition, but marriage is just a legal framework.
Having gay members of a group is highly advantageous in a number of situations, discussing morality rather than evolutionary functionality is really the wrong conversation to have.
Yeah, the West isn't declining either XD. FUD 24\7?
On February 11 2011 23:38 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: As long as stuff is CHEAP who cares if it's made by slaves in China working 16 hours a day for a bowl of rice.One example of many.
I happen to be in China right now, the standard pay for sweatshop workers is actually decent compared to other developing countries. Prices of necessities like rice + flour are kept low; most of the people who leave their subsistence farms to go to factories aren't going just out of need for food, but out of ambition to buy a place to live in the future or raise kids with an education, not unlike the ambitions of the poor in the West.
One of the main reasons China's been able to develop so quickly is its manufacturing strategy, which involves selling internally for a loss (thus keeping prices low here) until the product is good enough to sell for a profit overseas (usually it's still cheaper than competitors due to the artificially low currency). China's getting itself a pretty good deal, you don't need to worry about the guys over here.
Crazies like you who are completely closed off to non-conservative values, however...
On February 11 2011 23:38 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Well it sounds like something a crazy liberal would legislate. 2 Gay people cannot theoretically procreate therefore it isn't marriage , two men cannot provide a balanced upbringing for potential children (even if they could have any). Lack of morals = one of the big reasons the west is in decline. As long as stuff is CHEAP who cares if it's made by slaves in China working 16 hours a day for a bowl of rice.One example of many.
On February 11 2011 23:38 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Well it sounds like something a crazy liberal would legislate. 2 Gay people cannot theoretically procreate therefore it isn't marriage , two men cannot provide a balanced upbringing for potential children (even if they could have any). Lack of morals = one of the big reasons the west is in decline. As long as stuff is CHEAP who cares if it's made by slaves in China working 16 hours a day for a bowl of rice.One example of many.
Based on "crazy liberal" and the disturbingly and the stereotypically disjointed logic, you're either trolling or you aren't older than fourteen years old, but I'll bite, and I'll put things as simply as possible.
Marriage is not legally defined by their hypothetical procreation. If it was, the legal code surrounding marriage would specify that x-couple is required to have y-number of babies, or procreation outside of wedlock would carry with it stringent legal consequences. The gay marriage debate is about the rights afforded spouses mentioned in this post.
Similarly, gay couples can and do adopt or they have surrogate donors (like surrogate mothers for gay men or sperm donors for gay women). Similarly, some of the most sane and logical people I have ever met were raised by two moms or two dads. Your hearsay, lacking in any substantive proof, is as good as mine, lacking in any substantive proof, beyond their canceling each other out.
Same for the implication that gay marriage directly leads to amorality. Here is some more hearsay: some of the hardest-working, busiest people I've met in my life were like radioactively gay; some of the laziest, most entitled people I've ever met were heterosexual Protestants. But this is not something to make legislation on, being that "gay" and "straight" are essentialist constructs as is (blah blah blah blah).
I have nothing to say about the last sentence besides noting that off-shoring and outsourcing manufacturing was a business strategy introduced by Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher to deal with the previous labour crisis.
On February 11 2011 17:54 gork84 wrote: Some food for thought. What about atheist couples who become married via a courthouse, with no religious involvement? That shouldn't be labeled a marriage either considering that there was no ceremony with no priest/pastor etc. You can't pick and choose the parts of the bible/religion you want to follow and ignore the rest.
Strike the term marriage from all legal terminology and replace it with civil union. Leave the term marriage in the churches where it belongs. If you are truly a christian, whether your government labels it marriage or civil union or whatever, their name for it shouldn't matter because you went through the steps of your religion to be married.
The argument isn't about the name, its about equal treatment of people. Its ridiculous how blind people can be.
Absolutely. I also became numb to this issue when people began to condemn the Catholic church for not allowing same-sex marriages inside the church... That goes beyond 'equality' and starts pushing the beliefs of the institution... But that's not really OT.
Why are straight people so interested in what gay people can and cant do?!
I guess its a defense mechanism, so those closet gays dont feel like they are losing by staying in the closet, so they bash em homos to no end, until they are forced into the same closet those guys are in.
What about polygamy? Is that part of the slippery slope or is it a legitimate issue? As I see it most gay marriage supporters I have met aren't in favour of polygamy but if our western values can allow for more than one kind of marriage then we may as well allow multiple partners. At least we an say that there is a history in some parts of the world for polygamy.
On February 12 2011 02:47 D10 wrote: Why are straight people so interested in what gay people can and cant do?!
I guess its a defense mechanism, so those closet gays dont feel like they are losing by staying in the closet, so they bash em homos to no end, until they are forced into the same closet those guys are in.
I'm just going to play a simple swap here and see how it goes:
Why are White people so interested in what Black people can and can't do? Why are Rich people so interested in what Poor people can and can't do? Why is anyone so interested in what anyone can or can't do?
Its a simple wish for your fellow man or woman to be afforded the same rights as anyone else. Something this country was supposedly founded on.
As for two men not being able to raise a balanced child, that is completely sexist. What about single parents? Its ridiculous to think that someone raised by two women or two men, gay or not has such an immense effect.
I do agree though that churches should not be forced into performing marriage ceremonies for gay couples. Not that there aren't churches out there that already perform the ceremonies if need be.
Should sterile men or women be banned from marriage?
Well they did ban a guy with low IQ from having sex last week so who knows what is in the pipeline.
If they did choose to adopt children though (the sterile couple) then that environment would be better for raising kids.Kids brought up by two gay partners would be teased at school for that reason.
Should sterile men or women be banned from marriage?
Well they did ban a guy with low IQ from having sex last week so who knows what is in the pipeline.
If they did choose to adopt children though (the sterile couple) then that environment would be better for raising kids.Kids brought up by two gay partners would be teased at school for that reason.
I'm guessing this is the man you're talking about:
A man with a low IQ has been banned from having sexual intercourse by a High Court judge who admitted the case raised questions about "civil liberties and personal autonomy".
The 41 year-old had been in a relationship with a man with whom he lived and told officials "it would make me feel happy" for it to continue.
But his local council, which provides his accommodation, decided his "vigorous sex drive" was inappropriate and that with an IQ of 48 and a "moderate" learning disability, he did not understand what he was doing. It started legal proceedings to restrict the relationship.
A number of professional medical organizations -- including the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychiatric Association -- have issued statements claiming that a parent's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child.
For the most part, the organizations are relying on a relatively small but conclusive body of research -- approximately 67 studies -- looking at children of gay parents and compiled by the American Psychological Association. In study after study, children in same-sex parent families turned out the same, for better or for worse, as children in heterosexual families.
'
And before you say I'm cherry-picking:
"With all due respect to Cheney and her partner," Dr. James Dobson of the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, wrote in Time magazine in December, "the majority of more than 30 years of social-science evidence indicates that children do best on every measure of well-being when raised by their married mother and father."
Some liberals chimed in too, notably Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist Leonard Pitts, who cited "a growing body of research that tells us the child raised without his or her biological father is significantly more likely to live in poverty, do poorly in school, drop out altogether, become a teen parent, exhibit behavioral problems, smoke, drink, use drugs or wind up in jail."
However:
The problem with the research cited by both Dr. Dobson and Mr. Pitts is that it compares children of heterosexual couples only with those of single parents and not with children of same-sex parent families, said Gary Gates, a senior research fellow at the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law and an expert on census data involving gay and lesbian households.
But there is also this fact:
The problem with these studies, Dr. Gates says, is that most of the children are from "intentional" same-sex parent families, where the parents tend to be better educated, more affluent and more open about their sexual orientation, and who deliberately conceive or adopt children with the intention of raising them in a same-sex parent family.
"My research suggests that's not the typical gay parent household," Dr. Gates said.
And if you read on, there's hubbub from both sides of the fence on this issue. There is no conclusive evidence, either way, to verify what you so blindly have stated. While based on your beliefs, you may think gay couples aren't as suitable parents as hetero couples are, going around and spouting that opinion as fact annoys the hell out of me.
The problem with the research cited by both Dr. Dobson and Mr. Pitts is that it compares children of heterosexual couples only with those of single parents and not with children of same-sex parent families
Why on earth did you post this?
While based on your beliefs, you may think gay couples aren't as suitable parents as hetero couples are, going around and spouting that opinion as fact annoys the hell out of me.
Thousands of years of human evolution says otherwise.
I logged in to say that posting an argument on why gay marriage should be allowed on TL is 1 step short of posting it on Digg before it sold out completely. You aren't gonna get any meaningful arguments. Only people agreeing or disagreeing with minor points of the argument but not the entire message. And then people bicker over arguments that slowly develop farther and farther away from OP topic.
But anyways, about the whole whether or not gays should be allowed children, my 2 cents:
The thing to realize is that true homosexuality(they did not choose that they will be gay) will always be a small minority among humanity. As a result the unnatural nature (I'm pretty sure nature intended us to reproduce/mate with the opposite sex) of homosexuality will always be discriminated against in some way.
With that in mind, my idea is that homosexual couples should not be allowed to go through artificial insemination or whatever it is to produce children as they more often than not, will be raising a child that will be discriminated against and suffer a shitty childhood. I will go ahead and say they should be able to adopt as chances are, the life they can provide for the orphan is better than what they already have.
Gay parents can love/fail children just as much as straight parents can. Only difference is how the outside world is going to treat the children based on parents/family status. If you honestly don't think so, consider how kids are treated on parental wealth, single parenthood or not, parental occupation, cultural/ethic background, the cars they are picked up in if any... the fact that your parents are gay is gonna do a lot.
On February 14 2011 00:07 lone_hydra wrote: Gay parents can love/fail children just as much as straight parents can. Only difference is how the outside world is going to treat the children based on parents/family status. If you honestly don't think so, consider how kids are treated on parental wealth, single parenthood or not, parental occupation, cultural/ethic background, the cars they are picked up in if any... the fact that your parents are gay is gonna do a lot.
I'm pretty sure the same argument was made when inter-racial marriage was allowed. Now, the majority of people don't even care.
Years from now, the majority of the population will feel the exact same way about kids from gay parents.
On February 14 2011 00:07 lone_hydra wrote: Gay parents can love/fail children just as much as straight parents can. Only difference is how the outside world is going to treat the children based on parents/family status. If you honestly don't think so, consider how kids are treated on parental wealth, single parenthood or not, parental occupation, cultural/ethic background, the cars they are picked up in if any... the fact that your parents are gay is gonna do a lot.
I'm pretty sure the same argument was made when inter-racial marriage was allowed. Now, the majority of people don't even care.
Years from now, the majority of the population will feel the exact same way about kids from gay parents.
Whatever, we'll see, arguing about it won't change much. But your argument has weak correlation. Although both are fighting for human rights, inter-racials it is biologically natural for them to procreate and have kids who will know their father and mother. Children of homosexuals will at best have the feeling of a divorced kid who has a gay-step parent, and at worst never know who their other true father/mother are.
The problem with the research cited by both Dr. Dobson and Mr. Pitts is that it compares children of heterosexual couples only with those of single parents and not with children of same-sex parent families
Why on earth did you post this?
Because regardless of whether gay couples are always good at raising children, it tramples all over the idea that somehow children need to have both a mother and a father to develop properly.
While based on your beliefs, you may think gay couples aren't as suitable parents as hetero couples are, going around and spouting that opinion as fact annoys the hell out of me.
Thousands of years of human evolution says otherwise.
On February 14 2011 00:07 lone_hydra wrote: Gay parents can love/fail children just as much as straight parents can. Only difference is how the outside world is going to treat the children based on parents/family status. If you honestly don't think so, consider how kids are treated on parental wealth, single parenthood or not, parental occupation, cultural/ethic background, the cars they are picked up in if any... the fact that your parents are gay is gonna do a lot.
I'm pretty sure the same argument was made when inter-racial marriage was allowed. Now, the majority of people don't even care.
Years from now, the majority of the population will feel the exact same way about kids from gay parents.
Whatever, we'll see, arguing about it won't change much. But your argument has weak correlation. Although both are fighting for human rights, inter-racials it is biologically natural for them to procreate and have kids who will know their father and mother. Children of homosexuals will at best have the feeling of a divorced kid who has a gay-step parent, and at worst never know who their other true father/mother are.
Uhhhh what's your point? This is really not very coherent
Marriage is a Christian concept, correct? So, the only reason homosexual couples want to be married is because of the government benefits?
Why can't we just create an equal concept of marriage or give the same incentives to civil unions?
And if anyone complains, that would be an equal institution. Having different names does not imply different institutions in the legal system and therefore would be constitutional. It would hold hold a different demeanor because the public does not support one of them, not the government.
On February 14 2011 05:12 holynorth wrote: Marriage is a Christian concept, correct? So, the only reason homosexual couples want to be married is because of the government benefits?
Why can't we just create an equal concept of marriage or give the same incentives to civil unions?
And if anyone complains, that would be an equal institution. Having different names does not imply different institutions in the legal system and therefore would be constitutional. It would hold hold a different demeanor because the public does not support one of them, not the government.
Incorrect - marriage is pretty much existent in some form or another in nearly every culture and religion*.
Therefore, claiming that it defies the laws of Christianity is a flawed argument. While your argument holds truth, if you are going to allow them the to be in a civil union, why not just allow them to be married by non-christian sources / give them the title of "marriage".
I'm okay with gay marriage, but they shouldnt be capable of adopt a child, i dont think it will be good for the child to have gay parents, not good example etc.
On February 14 2011 06:14 SlyinZ wrote: I'm okay with gay marriage, but they shouldnt be capable of adopt a child, i dont think it will be good for the child to have gay parents, not good example etc.
Can't be any worse than the shithole foster care system.
On February 14 2011 00:07 lone_hydra wrote: Gay parents can love/fail children just as much as straight parents can. Only difference is how the outside world is going to treat the children based on parents/family status. If you honestly don't think so, consider how kids are treated on parental wealth, single parenthood or not, parental occupation, cultural/ethic background, the cars they are picked up in if any... the fact that your parents are gay is gonna do a lot.
I'm pretty sure the same argument was made when inter-racial marriage was allowed. Now, the majority of people don't even care.
Years from now, the majority of the population will feel the exact same way about kids from gay parents.
Whatever, we'll see, arguing about it won't change much. But your argument has weak correlation. Although both are fighting for human rights, inter-racials it is biologically natural for them to procreate and have kids who will know their father and mother. Children of homosexuals will at best have the feeling of a divorced kid who has a gay-step parent, and at worst never know who their other true father/mother are.
Your argument makes 0 sense. There are just as many screwed up kids raise by straight parents. Bad parenting doesn't discriminate.
Anyway, economic factors have a bigger impact anyway. A poor kid raise by his mom and dad still has crappier odds in life compared to a kid raise by well-off gay parents.
On February 14 2011 00:07 lone_hydra wrote: I logged in to say that posting an argument on why gay marriage should be allowed on TL is 1 step short of posting it on Digg before it sold out completely. You aren't gonna get any meaningful arguments. Only people agreeing or disagreeing with minor points of the argument but not the entire message. And then people bicker over arguments that slowly develop farther and farther away from OP topic.
But anyways, about the whole whether or not gays should be allowed children, my 2 cents:
The thing to realize is that true homosexuality(they did not choose that they will be gay) will always be a small minority among humanity. As a result the unnatural nature (I'm pretty sure nature intended us to reproduce/mate with the opposite sex) of homosexuality will always be discriminated against in some way.
With that in mind, my idea is that homosexual couples should not be allowed to go through artificial insemination or whatever it is to produce children as they more often than not, will be raising a child that will be discriminated against and suffer a shitty childhood. I will go ahead and say they should be able to adopt as chances are, the life they can provide for the orphan is better than what they already have.
Gay parents can love/fail children just as much as straight parents can. Only difference is how the outside world is going to treat the children based on parents/family status. If you honestly don't think so, consider how kids are treated on parental wealth, single parenthood or not, parental occupation, cultural/ethic background, the cars they are picked up in if any... the fact that your parents are gay is gonna do a lot.
I wasn't looking for any meaningful arguments.
Seriously, let's all talk more about Taeyeon guys.
On February 14 2011 06:14 SlyinZ wrote: I'm okay with gay marriage, but they shouldnt be capable of adopt a child, i dont think it will be good for the child to have gay parents, not good example etc.
This is a horrible argument, and you also provide no evidence.
On February 14 2011 00:07 lone_hydra wrote: I logged in to say that posting an argument on why gay marriage should be allowed on TL is 1 step short of posting it on Digg before it sold out completely. You aren't gonna get any meaningful arguments. Only people agreeing or disagreeing with minor points of the argument but not the entire message. And then people bicker over arguments that slowly develop farther and farther away from OP topic.
But anyways, about the whole whether or not gays should be allowed children, my 2 cents:
The thing to realize is that true homosexuality(they did not choose that they will be gay) will always be a small minority among humanity. As a result the unnatural nature (I'm pretty sure nature intended us to reproduce/mate with the opposite sex) of homosexuality will always be discriminated against in some way.
With that in mind, my idea is that homosexual couples should not be allowed to go through artificial insemination or whatever it is to produce children as they more often than not, will be raising a child that will be discriminated against and suffer a shitty childhood. I will go ahead and say they should be able to adopt as chances are, the life they can provide for the orphan is better than what they already have.
Gay parents can love/fail children just as much as straight parents can. Only difference is how the outside world is going to treat the children based on parents/family status. If you honestly don't think so, consider how kids are treated on parental wealth, single parenthood or not, parental occupation, cultural/ethic background, the cars they are picked up in if any... the fact that your parents are gay is gonna do a lot.
OK, first, bolded statements need sources.
Second, "I'm pretty sure nature intended us to reproduce/mate with the opposite sex" is a lousy sentence, as it requires the assumption that nature has a purpose.
Even so, if nature has an intent, then it was because of nature giving us humans the ability to love, couldn't it also be nature's intent for us to love and be with the one we're supposed to be with? Whether that person be male or female?
Third, if you consider that fact that children of gay couples will inevitably be harassed because of the sexual orientation of their parents, shouldn't you also consider banning wealthy couples from producing children? Wouldn't those rich children be also the target of harassment, as is the case with children of gay couples? How do you quantify the level of abuse, and where do you draw the line?
Hey homophobes Definition of MARRIAGE 1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law, OR (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
Well, the reason its a slippery slope is more of what it can be, not what it is.
By their logic,not neccesarily mine,: If we don't allow gay marriage, then we won't slip down the slippery slope. If we do allow gay marriage, then it will become a slippery slope and every type of marriage or a significant amount of unapproved marriages will be allowed.
It's funny because I remember seeing Chris Rock do a similar bit on this relation.
Just because somebody is not a homosexual, doesn't mean that they can't act "gay"
Gay again synonymous with annoying or idiotic. E.g somebody says or does some gay shit, and you call him out for it. Hey faggot ! Get moving ! Or... shit dude.. that shit you just did was so gay.. etc.
without having derogatory terms against the homosexuals, but sure I can see it can be offensive to some.
On April 24 2011 23:35 Bippzy wrote: Well, the reason its a slippery slope is more of what it can be, not what it is.
By their logic,not neccesarily mine,: If we don't allow gay marriage, then we won't slip down the slippery slope. If we do allow gay marriage, then it will become a slippery slope and every type of marriage or a significant amount of unapproved marriages will be allowed.
It's not a paradox, it's two if-then statements.
Edit: Taeyoon is SO beautiful. Dayum, jimmy.
My point is that gay marriage is the (at least) second stage of this slippery slope, not the first. So before this, fifty years ago:
"If we don't allow interracial marriage, then we won't slip down the slippery slope."
Well, we allowed it, and here we are at gay marriage, fifty years later, with opponents of it using precisely the same logic. Now if we don't allow gay marriage, then we have effectively stopped the "slippery slope" of allowing interracial marriage. In other words, allowing interracial marriage didn't cause us to slip down the slippery slope. But if that didn't cause it, then why would allowing gay marriage?
Due to my upbringing I find it weird how there's this seemingly unbreakable link between religious marriage and civil marriage.
As an idea in Romania there is marriage as defined by law, with all the rights granted and no mention of religion. You are compelled to go to the city hall and get married by someone there. The vows are generic in terms of respect blah blah, love, care and all that. For now this is man-woman in law.
After the civil ceremony you go to your respective church/temple/mosque/w/e (with the marriage certificate in hand, no clergy will perform a marriage ceremony between two people that are not legally married especially since it has no value in the eyes of the law if you're just religiously married - I suppose it's a common sense deal between church and state) and have the religious ceremony performed according to your faith, if you want to do it. It's not compulsory for being granted the rights but is done by probably 90% of couples that believe in some god - it's a bit of an extra cost and running around and effort.
I also assume that when they will make it possible for homosexual marriages the church might object to the use of the term marriage in law and it might get changed to civil union but that's about the only problem I can see.