|
Marriage is a religious constitution. If we have any religious freedom left in this world, then the church should have every right to ban gay marriage. Sure, if there's a church who is willing to accept it, then they are free to do so, but how many churches would do that? The only solution is to allow civil same-sex marriage, and keep church marriage as it is, between man and woman.
Don't let religion meddle with the government and don't let the government meddle with religion. Gays should have every right to register a partnership that is seen as equal to a church marriage by the government, but they have no right to force the church to accept gay marriage.
On October 21 2011 06:42 Darclite wrote:
But consider that homosexuality exists in most animals (so it isn't like gay humans are unnatural, it exists in nature). Also consider that if something wasn't natural, it probably wouldn't exist in the first place.
So murder is natural too?
|
On October 21 2011 08:02 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:57 olderbrother wrote:On October 21 2011 07:07 FabledIntegral wrote:
Then it's not the same and is the definition of discrimination. And where the heck are you getting the notion that gay people want to all be married in a church? Since when is a church a prerequisite for marriage? You seem highly uninformed on this issue, really.
I don´t think you understand what he meant. In Sweden gays can get married through the state or the church. Both marriages are the same and you get the same legal rights. He is proposing that only the statemarriage should have any legal consequences. If any religious group wont allow gays, then so be it, the government should not interfere. Ok? What's your point - I already said they generally don't want to get married in churches anyways.
Maybe not in USA, but in Sweden being gay is no big deal and there are gays that are christian and want to be married in the church. We have gay priests and even bishops.
Can you explain what you meant with "Then it's not the same and is the definition of discrimination.".
|
On October 21 2011 08:09 ninini wrote:
Marriage is a religious constitution.
Nope.
|
On October 21 2011 07:29 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:22 DoubleReed wrote:On October 21 2011 07:17 T0fuuu wrote:
Nyeah... I dont have anything against gay marriage but i wonder how open most supporters would be to polygamy. We have a pretty sizeable muslim pop in au now and maybe they should start pushing to have their multiple marriages officially recignised so they dont need to sneak off and do it illegally. If a marriage in this country is just a pairing of people that dont want to call it a civil union then may as well open it up a bit more. Polygamy has an incredibly ugly history of misogyny, domestic abuse, and pedophilia. It's really not the same thing. There's nothing wrong with plural marriages. It's only perceived as bad because of a few sects (LDS etc.) You can find misogyny, domestic abuse, and pedophilia in any marriage.
Many people see polygamy as "My wife isn't as pretty, I'll get another younger one." The institution of polygamy itself historically has gone heavily with misogyny and terrible family situations. Many people will argue that polygamy itself as misogynistic, and historically that's true.
I'm not necessarily arguing against polygamy. I don't really see a problem with consenting adults doing whatever they want. But the issues you have to step over aren't the same. Gay Marriage doesn't have that history. They are different issues.
Don't let religion meddle with the government and don't let the government meddle with religion. Gays should have every right to register a partnership that is seen as equal to a church marriage by the government, but they have no right to force the church to accept gay marriage.
There is zero talk about churches being forced to marry anyone. If you think government shouldn't meddle with religion then how about people that believe that homosexual marriages are perfectly okay with their religion? Do you think they should have to register for "partnerships" while heterosexuals register for marriages?
|
On October 21 2011 08:02 cristo1122 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:59 Bibdy wrote:On October 21 2011 07:57 olderbrother wrote:On October 21 2011 07:07 FabledIntegral wrote:
Then it's not the same and is the definition of discrimination. And where the heck are you getting the notion that gay people want to all be married in a church? Since when is a church a prerequisite for marriage? You seem highly uninformed on this issue, really.
I don´t think you understand what he meant. In Sweden gays can get married through the state or the church. Both marriages are the same and you get the same legal rights. He is proposing that only the statemarriage should have any legal consequences. If any religious group wont allow gays, then so be it, the government should not interfere. I don't see where gays are asking to be married at Churches, though. They don't need their blessing, and for the life of me I can't figure out why they'd want it. its mainly a legal thing u get a whole bunch of benifits and rights and such under the law for example if ur partner dies then u can access their supperannuation (401k) tax free assuming u are named but if ur not a partner then it can be the subjeeect of duties. Also if u are a partner of a solider then u get thier benifits if they die (e.g. ww2 veteran dies of old age wife is still covered under his benifit which is significantly better than most other benifits proveded by the governement).
And how is this related to being married in a church?
|
On October 21 2011 07:17 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. Woah, why did he get banned for this? He basically said "Please don't ban me if my opinion happens to offend someone", not "I'm going to get banned for this so here I go". There's a huge difference...
He got banned just for this phrase: "If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot."
The rest is OK, being gay is unnatural indeed, because from the nature point of view you have to breed. "Please don't ban me" should be simply ignored, only what comes after matters.
Maybe he meant "when I imagine gay sex...", not "being gay is disgusting".
Consider that his English is far from perfect and that he says later that as long as gays are happy, it is OK.
Anyway, ban for that is too much IMHO and there is huge probability that word "disgusting" refers to his feelings when he imagine gay sex, that maybe still not nice to express, but definitely not a ban.
The guy is from a Slavic country, where it is relatively easy to find a nice women, and the gay culture is not popular at all. He did not realize how sensitive is this topic in the Western world.
Consider everything above I suggest it is OK for TL community to replace the ban with temp ban for few days.
|
On October 21 2011 07:43 lowkontrast wrote:
I hope I don't get banned for this, but I think that Julia Gillard's decision is a clear demonstration of backwards thinking. Sure, in 3rd world countries, this is a bit more excusable with the lack of education and information going around, and holds more merit as an innocent misconception. However, last time I checked, Australia isn't a 3rd world country. It's on Earth, and Earth is the 1st world. It's really inexcusable for this kind of thinking to still be going around in places that are supposed to be the front runners of being humane and demonstrating the "correct" way of life.
Really? In a thread where a quarter of the posts were discussing a ban for a martyr post? Okay.
On October 21 2011 07:40 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:17 T0fuuu wrote:
Nyeah... I dont have anything against gay marriage but i wonder how open most supporters would be to polygamy. We have a pretty sizeable muslim pop in au now and maybe they should start pushing to have their multiple marriages officially recignised so they dont need to sneak off and do it illegally. If a marriage in this country is just a pairing of people that dont want to call it a civil union then may as well open it up a bit more. No, this is totally wrong, and you're obscuring the issue by introducing something that's irrelevant. Gay marriage is no different to straight marriage. In practical terms (the way it works in society) it is virtually identical. Polygamy is a totally different ball game, so you can't say that one opens the door to the other, unless you hope to undermine gay marriage efforts by bringing up negative aspects of polygamy (which is in itself a strawman). Fundamentally the difference is responsibility, where responsibility is about doing your thing without hurting other people or creating problems for others. Two gay people should be allowed to marry because they should have the freedom to responsibly experience their humanity. If nobody is reasonably being hurt then why not? Most of the issues associated with polygamy, however, arise due to the fact that people (most often women) are being exploited. It is often not about allowing the same adults in question the freedom to explore and experience their humanity. Sorry to say, but many of the proponents of polygamist relationships are not interested in being responsible in the same way. So, the stigma surrounding these two issues are for very different considerations, and can't be meaningfully compared. Inclusive policy should support people's responsible desire to live and experience, and it should condemn people's desires to live and experience at the cost of others as irresponsible. While polygamy can theoretically exist responsibly, the majority of it does not currently. If we're going to philosophize, then let's keep these two issues separate.
Gay marriage is not a completely different ball game to polygamy. It is however on a different scale.
I support the legalization of gay marriage, and I support the legalization of polygamy for the same reason. People should be afforded the freedom to act in a manner they choose unless that action would infringe upon the freedoms of another person, or if they lack the capacity to choose wisely.
Gay marriage is similar to straight marriage, but is not identical. "In 2005, over half of new HIV infections diagnosed in the US were among gay men, and up to one in five gay men living in cities is thought to be HIV positive."
Like your statistical statement about polygamist relationships often being abusive, homosexual relationships also have detrimental traits when compared to heterosexual relationships. To say that polygamy should be banned because polygamists have tendencies to be violent towards spouses is a generalizing argument. Perhaps we should ban alcohol, video games, boxing, MMA, and all contact sports for the same reason? Abusing spouses is already a crime, it goes too far to ban something because it has the potential to increase crime.
Personally I feel the best option is to deregulate marriages. Marriages should fall under normal contract law. This would remove all the inconsistencies in the law with regard to polygamy, gay marriage, incest, etc. Currently, living with multiple sexual partners is legal, but it's illegal to marry them. A marriage contract would also be a prenuptial agreement into itself, and therefore encourage people to educate themselves about legal protections available in relationships.
|
On October 21 2011 08:05 TOloseGT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 08:03 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:42 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 07:38 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:34 Thorakh wrote:On October 21 2011 07:32 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:25 Thorakh wrote:On October 21 2011 07:24 cLutZ wrote:
What is the point of marriage from the governments POV?
In other words, why does the government sponsor and endorse marriage?
Does gay marriage also further these goals?
This is a set of questions that I don't think have ever been adequately answered. Give two people legal advantages? See above. Of course. There you go. This is under the usual assumption that marriage means legal bonding, and not a religious bonding. Why does the government WANT to give a pair of people legal advantages over two single people? I'm assuming they don't want to but at this point it's too late to back out since the people would never accept not having marriage. They have to give everyone the same rights and as such gay marriage has to be legal. So does that means that tax breaks, etc are going to be rolled back for all married people? Technically, recognizing gay marriage is both a massive tax break and a massive increase in government expenditures. On October 21 2011 07:34 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 07:32 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:25 Thorakh wrote:On October 21 2011 07:24 cLutZ wrote:
What is the point of marriage from the governments POV?
In other words, why does the government sponsor and endorse marriage?
Does gay marriage also further these goals?
This is a set of questions that I don't think have ever been adequately answered. Give two people legal advantages? See above. Of course. There you go. This is under the usual assumption that marriage means legal bonding, and not a religious bonding. Why does the government WANT to give a pair of people legal advantages over two single people? Similar to how the Christian Church pushed for heterosexual marriage, as a means of procreation. How does that apply in the gay marriage context. It doesn't, that's the problem. The anti-gay marriage crowd will say shit like marriage is supposed to strengthen traditional family roles and further human procreation. Those were the reasons back in the dark ages, they no longer apply. So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage? Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages.
That's not a justification.
If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong.
Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls.
|
On October 21 2011 07:23 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:17 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On October 21 2011 06:39 Deekin[ wrote:
I hope I dont get banned for my opinion, but I think being gay is pretty unnatural. If I think about it, it disgusts me, alot. But I think gay marriage should be allowed all over the world. Because I think people should be happy, and if they are gay and are happy, then its just great for them.
User was banned for this post. Woah, why did he get banned for this? He basically said "Please don't ban me if my opinion happens to offend someone", not "I'm going to get banned for this so here I go". There's a huge difference... He said 'I hope I don't get banned' which is a martyr every time. There is no difference.
There is a very clear difference between saying "I hope I don't get banned" and "I will probably get banned." One of them is expressing a fear and the other is backseat moderating + martyring. He simply worded his statement poorly, what he was trying to say is "I hope people don't take too much offense with my opinion, so I will preface it by showing that I understand this is an unpopular opinion."
|
On October 21 2011 08:09 ninini wrote:
Marriage is a religious constitution. If we have any religious freedom left in this world, then the church should have every right to ban gay marriage. Sure, if there's a church who is willing to accept it, then they are free to do so, but how many churches would do that? The only solution is to allow civil same-sex marriage, and keep church marriage as it is, between man and woman.
Don't let religion meddle with the government and don't let the government meddle with religion. Gays should have every right to register a partnership that is seen as equal to a church marriage by the government, but they have no right to force the church to accept gay marriage.
People got married long before religion claimed it as something they came up with.
|
On October 21 2011 08:12 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:29 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 07:22 DoubleReed wrote:On October 21 2011 07:17 T0fuuu wrote:
Nyeah... I dont have anything against gay marriage but i wonder how open most supporters would be to polygamy. We have a pretty sizeable muslim pop in au now and maybe they should start pushing to have their multiple marriages officially recignised so they dont need to sneak off and do it illegally. If a marriage in this country is just a pairing of people that dont want to call it a civil union then may as well open it up a bit more. Polygamy has an incredibly ugly history of misogyny, domestic abuse, and pedophilia. It's really not the same thing. There's nothing wrong with plural marriages. It's only perceived as bad because of a few sects (LDS etc.) You can find misogyny, domestic abuse, and pedophilia in any marriage. Many people see polygamy as "My wife isn't as pretty, I'll get another younger one." The institution of polygamy itself historically has gone heavily with misogyny and terrible family situations. Many people will argue that polygamy itself as misogynistic, and historically that's true. I'm not necessarily arguing against polygamy. I don't really see a problem with consenting adults doing whatever they want. But the issues you have to step over aren't the same. Gay Marriage doesn't have that history. They are different issues.
And? Many people that are monogymous have affairs and also divorce for someone else. You're not giving ANY viable reasons. "History" is completely friggin' irrelevant to someone's rights. Alcohol might increase the chances of domestic violence, and has a history with it. Are we going to ban people that drink alcohol from marrying? Associations are terrible arguments.
On October 21 2011 08:02 cristo1122 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:59 Bibdy wrote:On October 21 2011 07:57 olderbrother wrote:On October 21 2011 07:07 FabledIntegral wrote:
Then it's not the same and is the definition of discrimination. And where the heck are you getting the notion that gay people want to all be married in a church? Since when is a church a prerequisite for marriage? You seem highly uninformed on this issue, really.
I don´t think you understand what he meant. In Sweden gays can get married through the state or the church. Both marriages are the same and you get the same legal rights. He is proposing that only the statemarriage should have any legal consequences. If any religious group wont allow gays, then so be it, the government should not interfere. I don't see where gays are asking to be married at Churches, though. They don't need their blessing, and for the life of me I can't figure out why they'd want it. its mainly a legal thing u get a whole bunch of benifits and rights and such under the law for example if ur partner dies then u can access their supperannuation (401k) tax free assuming u are named but if ur not a partner then it can be the subjeeect of duties. Also if u are a partner of a solider then u get thier benifits if they die (e.g. ww2 veteran dies of old age wife is still covered under his benifit which is significantly better than most other benifits proveded by the governement).
And how is this related to being married in a church?
On October 21 2011 08:09 ninini wrote:Marriage is a religious constitution. If we have any religious freedom left in this world, then the church should have every right to ban gay marriage. Sure, if there's a church who is willing to accept it, then they are free to do so, but how many churches would do that? The only solution is to allow civil same-sex marriage, and keep church marriage as it is, between man and woman. Don't let religion meddle with the government and don't let the government meddle with religion. Gays should have every right to register a partnership that is seen as equal to a church marriage by the government, but they have no right to force the church to accept gay marriage. Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 06:42 Darclite wrote:
But consider that homosexuality exists in most animals (so it isn't like gay humans are unnatural, it exists in nature). Also consider that if something wasn't natural, it probably wouldn't exist in the first place. So murder is natural too?
What places are forcing churches to marry homosexuals?
|
On October 21 2011 08:12 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:29 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 07:22 DoubleReed wrote:On October 21 2011 07:17 T0fuuu wrote:
Nyeah... I dont have anything against gay marriage but i wonder how open most supporters would be to polygamy. We have a pretty sizeable muslim pop in au now and maybe they should start pushing to have their multiple marriages officially recignised so they dont need to sneak off and do it illegally. If a marriage in this country is just a pairing of people that dont want to call it a civil union then may as well open it up a bit more. Polygamy has an incredibly ugly history of misogyny, domestic abuse, and pedophilia. It's really not the same thing. There's nothing wrong with plural marriages. It's only perceived as bad because of a few sects (LDS etc.) You can find misogyny, domestic abuse, and pedophilia in any marriage. Many people see polygamy as "My wife isn't as pretty, I'll get another younger one." The institution of polygamy itself historically has gone heavily with misogyny and terrible family situations. Many people will argue that polygamy itself as misogynistic, and historically that's true. I'm not necessarily arguing against polygamy. I don't really see a problem with consenting adults doing whatever they want. But the issues you have to step over aren't the same. Gay Marriage doesn't have that history. They are different issues.
You're right that gay marriage doesn't have as many issues as heterosexual marriage and plural marriages, however, is that the case of homosexuals are better human beings, or is it because there isn't as big a pool to draw examples from?
Whenever you have people, you will have bad shit happening. That is inevitable. Whether those people are in a relationship or not, and whether those relationships are "traditional" or not, are not part of the equation. Your example that "my wife isn't as pretty" can work the same way in monogamy as well, only instead of another wife, it will be a mistress.
When you're saying polygamy, you're actually saying polygyny, the often seen one man to multiple wives. You can have a woman with multiple husbands, or two wives and two husbands etc. They don't all have to be misogynistic.
|
On October 21 2011 07:54 Phayze wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:40 sevencck wrote:On October 21 2011 07:17 T0fuuu wrote:
Nyeah... I dont have anything against gay marriage but i wonder how open most supporters would be to polygamy. We have a pretty sizeable muslim pop in au now and maybe they should start pushing to have their multiple marriages officially recignised so they dont need to sneak off and do it illegally. If a marriage in this country is just a pairing of people that dont want to call it a civil union then may as well open it up a bit more. No, this is totally wrong, and you're obscuring the issue by introducing something that's irrelevant. Gay marriage is no different to straight marriage. In practical terms (the way it works in society) it is virtually identical. Polygamy is a totally different ball game, so you can't say that one opens the door to the other, unless you hope to undermine gay marriage efforts by bringing up negative aspects of polygamy (which is in itself a strawman). Fundamentally the difference is responsibility, where responsibility is about doing your thing without hurting other people or creating problems for others. Two gay people should be allowed to marry because they should have the freedom to responsibly experience their humanity. If nobody is reasonably being hurt then why not? Most of the issues associated with polygamy, however, arise due to the fact that people (most often women) are being exploited. It is often not about allowing the same adults in question the freedom to explore and experience their humanity. Sorry to say, but many of the proponents of polygamist relationships are not interested in being responsible in the same way. So, the stigma surrounding these two issues are for very different considerations, and can't be meaningfully compared. Inclusive policy should support people's responsible desire to live and experience, and it should condemn people's desires to live and experience at the cost of others as irresponsible. While polygamy can theoretically exist responsibly, the majority of it does not currently. If we're going to philosophize, then let's keep these two issues separate. If the defence for gay marriage is largely based off of freedom, then the same should apply to polygamy. If they're changing societal norms by making changes in the definition of marriage then there is no reason polygamy should also be restricted. People against gay marriage are biased against it, you're being biased against polygamy in the same way. I dont see why marriage is so important to cause this much controversy.
And you don't need to, you only need to respect that it's important to others.
I didn't say carte blanche freedom, I made a distinction. I'll also remind you that being critical of polygamy in the name of freedom makes more sense than supporting it in the name of freedom, because polygamy has done more to deny people freedom than it has to empower them.
Straight marriage is OK, because we value the desires of a man and a woman to be together, therefore gay marriage should be OK because we should equally value the desires of a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) to be together. Yes this system of marriage can give rise to problems, abuse, violence etc. but it's fundamentally designed to empower two people to celebrate their love (barf). Polygamy as a system has become almost tailor made to give one person options, and leave others with none. I'm sorry but polygamy's track record on planet Earth is abysmal, and whether it can exist without all the exploitation is irrelevant, since we already know marriage between two (gay or straight) people can.
Again, polygamy is irrelevant to this discussion. We already have a marital structure that works, and only needs to be made universally applicable to all people regardless of gender/orientation etc. Talking about a new marital system is beyond the scope of this discussion. It's in no way hypocritical to support gay marriage in the name of freedom while having reservations about polygamy.
|
And? Many people that are monogymous have affairs and also divorce for someone else. You're not giving ANY viable reasons. "History" is completely friggin' irrelevant to someone's rights. Alcohol might increase the chances of domestic violence, and has a history with it. Are we going to ban people that drink alcohol from marrying? Associations are terrible arguments.
I'm saying the issues are different, I'm not saying polygamy is inherently wrong in any way.
I'm saying that when we have seen it in the past, it's been terrible. That is all.
When you're saying polygamy, you're actually saying polygyny, the often seen one man to multiple wives. You can have a woman with multiple husbands, or two wives and two husbands etc. They don't all have to be misogynistic.
Okay, so you have to understand that this is actually a very modern idea. People aren't used to seeing this. When you say legalizing polygamy, this is not what people are thinking of. You have to make people understand that that is what you're talking about, not the polygamy that we have seen numerous times throughout history.
That is not a trivial thing to do. Gay Marriage is much simpler to argue for, because it doesn't have that history. That is what I'm saying.
|
On October 21 2011 08:13 cLutZ wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 08:05 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 08:03 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:42 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 07:38 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:34 Thorakh wrote:On October 21 2011 07:32 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:25 Thorakh wrote:On October 21 2011 07:24 cLutZ wrote:
What is the point of marriage from the governments POV?
In other words, why does the government sponsor and endorse marriage?
Does gay marriage also further these goals?
This is a set of questions that I don't think have ever been adequately answered. Give two people legal advantages? See above. Of course. There you go. This is under the usual assumption that marriage means legal bonding, and not a religious bonding. Why does the government WANT to give a pair of people legal advantages over two single people? I'm assuming they don't want to but at this point it's too late to back out since the people would never accept not having marriage. They have to give everyone the same rights and as such gay marriage has to be legal. So does that means that tax breaks, etc are going to be rolled back for all married people? Technically, recognizing gay marriage is both a massive tax break and a massive increase in government expenditures. On October 21 2011 07:34 TOloseGT wrote:On October 21 2011 07:32 cLutZ wrote:On October 21 2011 07:25 Thorakh wrote:On October 21 2011 07:24 cLutZ wrote:
What is the point of marriage from the governments POV?
In other words, why does the government sponsor and endorse marriage?
Does gay marriage also further these goals?
This is a set of questions that I don't think have ever been adequately answered. Give two people legal advantages? See above. Of course. There you go. This is under the usual assumption that marriage means legal bonding, and not a religious bonding. Why does the government WANT to give a pair of people legal advantages over two single people? Similar to how the Christian Church pushed for heterosexual marriage, as a means of procreation. How does that apply in the gay marriage context. It doesn't, that's the problem. The anti-gay marriage crowd will say shit like marriage is supposed to strengthen traditional family roles and further human procreation. Those were the reasons back in the dark ages, they no longer apply. So what rationales DO apply for state-recognized marriage? Other than losing half of the voting population, not much. The fear of losing votes stops politicians from taking away tax breaks and other advantages. That's not a justification. If you support gay marriage you need to demonstrate that if provides the same benefits to society that traditional marriage does. If your position is that neither provides benefits, or it provides some but not all, your justifications should be strong. Someone mentioned that it creates a stable society. If so, there is a justification. It seems to me that most of the benefits we want from marriage are actually more related to raising children and procreation. If we recognize gay marriage, all those benefits should be transferred exclusively to persons who actually have children (and probably do this anyways), so we don't let freeloaders on the rolls.
Yes, we give incentives for married couples to have children. But homosexual couples can go through numerous ways to get a child. That is not justification for denying gay marriage.
Your view is that we give benefits for those couples with child. If so, then you should also admit that hetero couples without child should not receive benefits either.
The reason I support gay marriage is because hetero couples receive rights that gay couples currently do not. Since no one in power is willing to take away those rights from hetero couples, I support the alternative that gay couples receive those rights as well.
|
I have a question: do jewish people have different marriages than christians? and muslims, hindus, etc? If so, then it should follow that a society/state can call their own marriage by that same name under a secular definition.
|
On October 21 2011 08:17 sevencck wrote:
Straight marriage is OK, because we value the desires of a man and a woman to be together, therefore gay marriage should be OK because we should equally value the desires of a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) to be together. Yes this system of marriage can give rise to problems, abuse, violence etc. but it's fundamentally designed to empower two people to celebrate their love (barf). Polygamy as a system has become almost tailor made to give one person options, and leave others with none. I'm sorry but polygamy's track record on planet Earth is abysmal, and whether it can exist without all the exploitation is irrelevant, since we already know marriage between two (gay or straight) people can.
Again, polygamy is irrelevant to this discussion. We already have a marital structure that works, and only needs to be made universally applicable to all people regardless of gender/orientation etc. Talking about a new marital system is beyond the scope of this discussion. It's in no way hypocritical to support gay marriage in the name of freedom while having reservations about polygamy.
Are you kidding me? OF COURSE it is hypocritical to support gay marriage and have reservations about polygamy.
Listen to your own words man:
"we should equally value the desires of a man and a man (or a woman and a woman) to be together."
Now please, tell me. Why SHOULDN'T we value the desires of a man and a woman and a man to be together? If you want equal rights for gays then you must support equal rights for all sexual inclinations or you are quite obviously a hypocrite.
Are you honestly prepared to tell a polygamist or someone with object sexuality that what they're feeling shouldn't be recognized by society like everyone else's subjective "love"?
|
On October 21 2011 06:59 NotSupporting wrote:
I am against gay marriage (I'm atheist, always have been)
1. The state should not care about setting rules for religion just as religion should not set rules for the state.
2. Offer gay people an agreement with the same rights as marriage but call it something else to cover all the legal purposes. (In Sweden we have marriage and partnership, in the eyes of the law they are exactly the same thing but on is for heterosexual relationships only)
Solves both problems - the religious and legal.
Last note, for me it's crazy and illogical for gay people to want to get married in the church anyway. The bible hates gay people, it's a sin, religious people have killed gays coldblooded through history, it's largely thanks to Christianity the view on gay people have been so bad for such a long time. For me it's as illogical as if a Jew would fight all his life to be a part of the nazi community, but they reject him.
How courageous of you to give away other peoples' rights and other peoples' ability to celebrate. Especially when you say you are neither religious nor gay. Should people who practice Santeria not be allowed to be married? S'ok. We'll get them certificates. Should black people be given separate but of course equal status "B" partnership certificates?
Where do you draw the line? And , better yet, what gives you the "right" to draw these lines?
The whole reason that partnerships exist is to be a separate and inferior category for gay people. Non-religious people in America nevertheless don't get partnered, they get married (even when they don't go through the ceremony cf. common-law marriage.)
No one grows up dreaming to celebrate one day that they are forming a "partnership" and that the "eyes of the law" are looking on benignly. It's not the same thing, so don't pretend that it is. If it were, how about gay people being given marriage and heterosexual couples can get partnerships? Giving something up?
When you get married, you aren't telling the county clerk to get ready for some articles of incorporation. No, when you put a ring on someone's finger, you want the whole world to know how happy you are that you found someone to grow old with.
Which brings me to the more valid counter-argument against gay marriage which is, for some reason, typically avoided but always lurking, Tradition.
Marriage pre-dates America, and most modern states, so in many ways the institution doesn't fit well within our current framework of rights or liberties. If gays are allowed to marry why not polygamists? Or a person with an animal?
I think the shortest answer is that times change and that social institutions have to do largely with values. And that the "tradition" really wasn't that well-established to begin with.
'Traditional' marriage is pretty troubled by women' rights (not to mention divorce), some examples: Married women could never be raped by their husbands, Married women couldn't own property in the U.S. until the 1970s and the bible (usually regarded, incorrectly, as de facto tradition) even condones beating your wife.
We don't do these things now. And I hate to shock your sense of the "crazy and illogical" but women still get married and Jews live in Germany. And, interestingly enough, you don't mention churches which support gay marriage or how you'd fix them.
It's not like there is much logic or internal coherence to our social conventions or what things people need to be happy, other than this: they're transitory. Most people today value dignity, self-definition, privacy, and equality; unfortunately few are willing to flush these values out to their logical conclusions and see how things really stand.
|
On October 21 2011 07:36 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 07:22 DoubleReed wrote:On October 21 2011 07:17 T0fuuu wrote:
Nyeah... I dont have anything against gay marriage but i wonder how open most supporters would be to polygamy. We have a pretty sizeable muslim pop in au now and maybe they should start pushing to have their multiple marriages officially recignised so they dont need to sneak off and do it illegally. If a marriage in this country is just a pairing of people that dont want to call it a civil union then may as well open it up a bit more. Polygamy has an incredibly ugly history of misogyny, domestic abuse, and pedophilia. It's really not the same thing. So does monogamy.
The difference being every time instances of those happen in a polygamist relationship, it gets reported in the news and people see it. The media doesn't bother reporting your typical monogamous husband bashing his wife because it is less sensationalist.
It is pretty disappointing to be honest.
On October 21 2011 08:09 ninini wrote:
So murder is natural too?
Of course it is, but that doesn't make it right. The problem with murder though is you're hurting another person and their rights. Gay marriage isn't hurting anyone and only provides positives for the gay community while not affecting the straight community.
As for my opinion on gay marriage I have not heard one reasonable argument against it. Julia Gillard will do anything to stay in power, if public opinion is supporting gay marriage strong enough she'll surely try and pass it.
|
On October 21 2011 08:09 ninini wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2011 06:42 Darclite wrote:
But consider that homosexuality exists in most animals (so it isn't like gay humans are unnatural, it exists in nature). Also consider that if something wasn't natural, it probably wouldn't exist in the first place. So murder is natural too?
Yes. Yes Murder is as natural. People need to stop associating natural with good. The one has nothing to do with the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
