Gay Marriage

[Father Heathen]

Anti-miscegenation laws once banned mixed race marriages.
Do you regret that those laws were changed?

And slavery, and a woman's right to vote, etc.

The legal system evolves as we as a society evolve. Jubilee's way of thinking would still have us scratching about in the dark recesses of dank caves, grunting and howling at our shadows on the walls.

 

[jubilee131]

Did you miss this part?


Your continued inclusion of non-consensual children and animals in your argument is not helping to bolster any confidence in your reasoning.

Let me try to simplify it for you. I include children only because the age of consent is an arbitrary age picked for no apparent reason. A simple change of the law changes a child of 12 into a consenting adult which seems to be your criteria. In the 1800's it was not uncommon for a 12 yr old to get married. You seem to think it is the equivalent of mass murder. As for animals, did anyone consult the animal before he was purchased to see if he agreed to be owned as someone's pet? If not why would the owner need the consent of the animal for marriage? Talk about confidence in reasoning!

But let's address the polygamy issue. If three or more consenting adults wished to enter into a legal and social contract, the real issues would be the legal ramifications of divorce, inheritance, and joint property.
As far as homosexual marriage is concerned, these issues are already addressed in the current laws dealing with heterosexual marriage.

Are you telling me that the legal minds of this country can't figure this out? How do you divide a company owned by millions of share holders? In your example you simply divide by 3! So what you are telling me is that we can't have plural marriage because no one knows how to divide in this country, but we can have same sex marriage because everyone knows how to divide by 2? Currently courts can't seem to figure out custody schedules so we can't have marriage at all?

Now, can you address the issue of homosexual marriage between two consenting adults without including faulty slippery slope and straw man fallacies?

Sure I can do that. I will just use your technique. Since you refuse to acknowledge that the current age of consent laws can be changed, I will just state that same sex marriage is currently not allowed and evidently it can't be changed. Although I have not stated my view on same sex marriage you assume I am against it. All I have done is point out the hypocrisy that campaigning for same sex marriage and restricting all of the other groups that are prohibited from marriage.

 

[jubilee131]

It isn't banned everywhere.

My reason:
Restrict liberty only where there is a clear resultant benefit.
Otherwise, allow people to do as they please.

Society perceives a benefit from marriage whether it is real or imagined. Society provides benefits to encourage the type of marriage they see as beneficial. Society also gets to define marriage to get the expected benefits. If you want to receive the benefits you must meet society's requirements. If your lifestyle doesn't meet society's requirements you are out of luck. People like heterosexuals living together, gays, pedophiles etc are just out of luck or get society to change it's requirements. There is no right to marriage. Saying my lifestyle doesn't fit so you have to change the rules sounds like a 3 yr old's temper tantrum to me!

There is my position folks. Society is paying you to conform. If you do not like the conditions don't conform. It isn't rocket science.

 

[McBell]

Three responses that all say the same thing. Gays want the same rights as everyone else. Gays have the same rights when it comes to marriage. There is no law prohibiting a homosexual from getting married. There is no law prohibiting a pedophile from getting married. They must conform to the laws pertaining to marriage.

Many groups want the laws changed so they can marry the object of their affection. What makes gays more deserving than any other group? Based upon your statements all of these groups are being discriminated against. Why make the change for just one group? Why is discrimination OK against polygamists or close relatives but not gays?

They want the laws to reflect the facts, not the the "yuk" factor of the majority.

Marriage is a legal contract.
Thus, in order to legally ban same sex marriage, there needs to be a legal reason.

"God Says" is not a legal reason.
Nor is "I think it is gross".

Now since marriage is a legal contract, what is your legitimate legal reason same sex marriage should be banned?

 

[Father Heathen]

Society perceives a benefit from marriage whether it is real or imagined. Society provides benefits to encourage the type of marriage they see as beneficial. Society also gets to define marriage to get the expected benefits. If you want to receive the benefits you must meet society's requirements. If your lifestyle doesn't meet society's requirements you are out of luck. People like heterosexuals living together, gays, pedophiles etc are just out of luck or get society to change it's requirements. There is no right to marriage. Saying my lifestyle doesn't fit so you have to change the rules sounds like a 3 yr old's temper tantrum to me!

There is my position folks. Society is paying you to conform. If you do not like the conditions don't conform. It isn't rocket science.

But society's perceptions change as its knowledge and understanding of things grow. The honest, honorable thing to do is shed our irrational and unsubstantiated social norms and attitudes rather than wallow in willful ignorance, intellectual dishonesty and irrational fear. Society once thought of women as property, and other races as inferior, but we've progressed beyond such falsehoods.

 

[McBell]

Saying my lifestyle doesn't fit so you have to change the rules sounds like a 3 yr old's temper tantrum to me!

Are you under the false impression that there has been some sort of ban on same sex marriage for a long time?

 

[jubilee131]

Marriage is a legal contract.
Thus, in order to legally ban same sex marriage, there needs to be a legal reason.

"God Says" is not a legal reason.
Nor is "I think it is gross".

Now since marriage is a legal contract, what is your legitimate legal reason same sex marriage should be banned?

I never said it should be banned. I believe it can be banned.

I disagree with your statement:

Thus, in order to legally ban same sex marriage, there needs to be a legal reason.

Society is trying to encourage certain behavior to reap certain benefits so they offer benefits to those who will "marry". Society gets to define what marriage is to derive the intended benefits. No one is guaranteed they will qualify for marriage. If you meet the criteria you can get married and reap the benefits. Society is offering to pay you for certain behavior. No behavior no pay. You are free to choose whether you want to take advantage of the offer or not. No one has the right to marriage! Society can change the requirements to achieve the desired benefits. You can cry and stamp your feet all you want and it will change nothing.

 

[Alceste]

Just do not participate! It isn't rocket science.

Just find another one of the dozens of pathetic gay-bashing threads that are currently making the rounds at RF and add your bigoted voice instead of making a new thread. It's not rocket science.

 

[jubilee131]

But society's perceptions change as its knowledge and understanding of things grow. The honest, honorable thing to do is shed our irrational and unsubstantiated social norms and attitudes rather than wallow in willful ignorance, intellectual dishonesty and irrational fear. Society once thought of women as property, and other races as inferior, but we've progressed beyond such falsehoods.

Societies have never sanctioned same sex marriages. Obviously they didn't see any desirable benefits from it. If something has changed then change the criteria for marriage. Personally I don't think anything has changed. This hysterical cry for equal rights is laughable since there is no guarantee of marriage to anyone. It is nothing more than Political Correctness. There have been changes. They have added Age of Consent, restricted incest and plural marriage. This movement is about legislating a different more liberal morality. It is more about tearing down the old then valid reasons for change.

 

[jubilee131]

Are you under the false impression that there has been some sort of ban on same sex marriage for a long time?

At least 200 years in this country. Do you consider that long?

 

[jubilee131]

Just find another one of the dozens of pathetic gay-bashing threads that are currently making the rounds at RF and add your bigoted voice instead of making a new thread. It's not rocket science.

Care to point out a single occurrence of a gay bashing remark I made? If you can't win the argument then attack the person. You left out Homophobe, Nazi, Capitalist pig and a few more. But thank you for the complement. I must be winning.

 

[nnmartin]

The next method of attack you will receive will be to be labelled 'Troll'.

Obviously anyone who opposes same sex marriage cannot be serious and are only messing around on the internet for fun. It is impossible (as the Liberals believe) that anyone in 2011 can possibly have such outdated views.

Discussing same sex marriage = Bigot
Discussing racial issues = Racist
Discussing gender roles =Sexist
Discussing anything anti Liberal agenda in a constructive manner = Troll

Good luck!

 

[Draka]

Societies have never sanctioned same sex marriages.

False.

 

[Father Heathen]

Societies have never sanctioned same sex marriages.

Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[turk179]

Care to point out a single occurrence of a gay bashing remark I made? If you can't win the argument then attack the person. You left out Homophobe, Nazi, Capitalist pig and a few more. But thank you for the complement. I must be winning.

I wouldn't call being schooled in a religious forum, winning.

I honestly don't understand what is so hard about the "consenting adults" concept.
Lowering the age of consent or have parents sign contracts for children? Lowering the age of consent has been done before on a case by case basis. Proof of maturity and the ability to provide for oneself had to be shown. If not, then no. They are children and need to be protected. This has not changed or will not change in any of our lifetimes.
Have parents sign the contract? That would be a case of "my mom just married my boyfriend because i'm not old enough".....dur.
And now for your animal contracts argument. The owners of animals signing contracts for their animals was done for the owners. The animals did not see any of the money, they did not get to go to walmart and spend their money. The contracts were made because the owners owned the property(animals.) Hence the contracts were between two consenting adulds. This was a nice attempt at finally coming up with a valid defense against the powerful "consenting adults" term but in the end "consenting adults" makes sense when signing contracts or getting married. Comparing homosexual marriage with dogs and children once again fails.

 

[turk179]

The next method of attack you will receive will be to be labelled 'Troll'.

Obviously anyone who opposes same sex marriage cannot be serious and are only messing around on the internet for fun. It is impossible (as the Liberals believe) that anyone in 2011 can possibly have such outdated views.

Discussing same sex marriage = Bigot
Discussing racial issues = Racist
Discussing gender roles =Sexist
Discussing anything anti Liberal agenda in a constructive manner = Troll

Good luck!

Poor nnmartin. been proven wrong so many times he thinks he's a martyr now.

 

[Draka]

I must be winning.

Of course. duh. :sarcastic

 

[Revoltingest]

To proclaim winning is to lose.

 

[nnmartin]

Poor nnmartin. been proven wrong so many times he thinks he's a martyr now.

I have not been proven wrong - just been told that I am wrong, a big difference there.

Of course though, Martin must be wrong as he opposes gay marriage - he must be a bigot too!

 

[jubilee131]

I wouldn't call being schooled in a religious forum, winning.

I honestly don't understand what is so hard about the "consenting adults" concept.
Lowering the age of consent or have parents sign contracts for children? Lowering the age of consent has been done before on a case by case basis. Proof of maturity and the ability to provide for oneself had to be shown. If not, then no. They are children and need to be protected. This has not changed or will not change in any of our lifetimes.
Have parents sign the contract? That would be a case of "my mom just married my boyfriend because i'm not old enough".....dur.
And now for your animal contracts argument. The owners of animals signing contracts for their animals was done for the owners. The animals did not see any of the money, they did not get to go to walmart and spend their money. The contracts were made because the owners owned the property(animals.) Hence the contracts were between two consenting adulds. This was a nice attempt at finally coming up with a valid defense against the powerful "consenting adults" term but in the end "consenting adults" makes sense when signing contracts or getting married. Comparing homosexual marriage with dogs and children once again fails.

Did you actually read what I said? I did not compare same sex marriage to animals & children. What I said was: If you claim that marriage is a right as justification for same sex marriage then that same right applies to everyone including polygamists, incest, bestiality and pedophiles. If a right only applies to only 1 group it isn't a right.

I was pointing out that the age of consent could be set to 3 yrs old and a 3 yr old would be a consenting adult, so there is nothing magical about the term "Consenting Adult". That term is meaningless.

People were making the claim that children and animals cannot enter into contracts so under age marriage and human - animal marriages were not possible. I was demonstrating that children and animals have been under contract to refute their claims.

I was pointing out that their claims of advocating personal freedoms were merely a disguise for trying to legislate their version of morality.